As I write this, it will probably be the last post of 2011.
In a way this has been a great year, personally.
Mrs. RVFTLC and I became home owners for the first time. We have fairly decent health and Scout, the 14 and a half year-old Wonder Dog is still with us.
But for the United States, it has been a year of barely keeping our heads above water. Domestically and internationally.
But not all was bad.
Of course the seminal international event of this soon to be gone year was a the take down and killing of Osama bin Laden. And yes, I give the credit for making the decision to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
The domestic story continues to be the foundering economy. And the mixed results of the year in the stock market and continuous high unemployment make our situation tenuous at best.
But enough of that.
There is the serious business of making the all important predictions of the Year of Our Lord, 2011.
So with a little fanfare, here I go.
1) Rick Santorum will pull off the upset and win the Iowa caucus this Tuesday night. Ron Paul will come in second and Mitt Romney third.
2) Lets move on a week later and Mitt Romney will win the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich will take second and Rick Santorum third.
3) That leads to the big one. The Republican presidential nominee. It will be Mitt Romney. He will not choose a veep from any of those who ran against him. But he will choose a governor. Not who you are thinking. No, not New Jersey's Chris Christie but South Carolina's Nikki Haley. A solid bridge between the Tea Party folks and those that will find Mr. Romney a bit too moderate for their taste.
4) Romney/Haley will defeat Obama/Biden on November 6, 2012.
5) President-elect Romney will reward most of his rivals with positions if not cabinet posts.
6) The GOP will take the senate and keep the House of Representatives.
7) Americans will not go to the movies as much as this past year and it will be another decrease, second year in a row.
8) More famous people will come out as homosexuals and a lot will be some real surprises.
9) Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional by the United States supreme court.
10) The United States Postal Service will go belly-up and be reformed. The quasi-government enterprise will be officially returned to federal government control.
11) Gas prices will rise to $5 a gallon at some point in the upcoming year.
12) The so-called "Occupiers" will seriously wear out their welcome by disrupting the Rose Parade on January 2, 2012.
13) The following are sports predictions:
A) The Green Bay Packers will win their second Super Bowl in a row against the New England Patriots.
B) The Chicago Black Hawks will win the Stanley Cup this season.
C) The Boston Celtics will win the NBA Championship.
D) The Anaheim Angels* will win the World Series.
14) The world will not end on December 21, 2012. The 22nd, maybe! But not on the 21st!
15) A major city newspaper will fold and it will be in a city where there is only one newspaper to serve that city. It will not even be kept alive on the internet.
16) Conservative media will continue to grow. The Glen Beck experiment will be a success and cause others to contemplate leaving free broadcasting all together.
Of course there can be many others. If you have any, drop off a comment.
As this 2011 draws to a close, I am always grateful to those that drop by and read this blog. Many do not comment, but I know that it is read. It is why I keep at it.
Lets all make a difference in the new year. Lets commit to being a help to one another. And to restore those things that have been lost in our lives for whatever reason.
Most of all, from the RVFTLC family to yours. . .HAPPY NEW YEAR!
*This blog will NEVER refer to the Angels as the L-- A------- Angels of Anaheim. If you want to see that, go somewhere else!
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Want Another Reason California Is So Screwed Up?
Well, probably not. But I have to offer you the latest installment of the never-ending series on why the once Golden State is ready to go off the cliff.
Thanks to my pal An Unmarried Man, I was treated to this story that is, well bizarre seems to be too tame.
So, this dude Robert Edward De Shields, a frequent guest of the county and state prison system, committed an act that is beyond unthinkable.
Yes, Mr. De Shields committed the act of bestiality. He had sex with a dog. Not any kind of dog, mind you. But a puny chihuahua.
But hey, I guess when you are tweaking on crystal meth, a chihuahua looks like any other kind of hottie, right?
Yep, Mr. De Shields was high on meth and raped a chihuahua.
Needless to say, it was not his dog. Thank God. But horrified homeowners came home to find the tweaker, Mr. De Shields, holding the terrified dog. And after being examined by a vet, it was determined that the dog had severe injuries to his rectum and internal organs.
Now insert a big, fat eeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuwwwwwwwwww!
But wait! There is more!
Rightfully, Mr. De Shields was convicted of a crime.
But not just any crime.
Mr. De Shields was convicted of sexual assault of an animal. And he must register as a sex offender. And because of that, Mr. De Shields will have to serve time in state prison.
Ten years is the sentence.
Now because of the budget crisis that has made county jails extensions of state prisons, supposed low-level criminals are being sent to the jails to make room for, well the likes of Mr. De Shields.
But here is the thing.
Is it not a more severe sentence than if he had committed a similar act against a human?
And is this not elevating the rape of a dog, gross as it is, over the rape of a human?
Bingo on both counts!
The question is why in the hell was Mr. De Shields allowed to roam among the citizenry? Should he have not been in jail and or a mental institution?
Of course he should have been in one or the other. The dude has been in and out of prison since 1992. What is more amazing is that Mr. De Shields is wheelchair bound and yet raped a puppy.
Leave it to the London Daily Mail to delve a little deeper into this tale. As the report pointed out, the basis for seeking such a sentence is Jessica's Law. And it is the first time it has been applied to the rape of an animal.
But since the dude was high on meth, did he really know what the hell he was doing?
No. Being convicted of animal abuse under the basis of Jessica's Law is going way too far.
Yes, Mr. De Shields should be somewhere away from civilized society. But this is not the way to do it.
This puts the puppy at an equal level as human. It is the extension of the animal "rights" movement writ large.
As I have written many times, I am an animal lover. I do not like to see animal abuse. I do believe in animal welfare. That animals, even those bred for food, should be treated well. But animals are not human. They have some human characteristics, but they do not have the cognitive use of reason we do. Thus they do not and can not have "rights".
It is why there are laws against having sex with animals. Because we, the human, even under the influence of meth, have the ability to reason that it is not right nor natural to do such a thing.
But treating it at the same level in a court of law, well this is wrong.
While many real criminals will serve minimal time because of state prison overcrowding, a sledge hammer was taken in this case because there seemed to be no other way to get this degenerate, De Shields, off the streets.
Two lessons should be learned here.
One, druggies like Mr. De Shields are not going to be helped. They need to be institutionalized. Yes, I want my tax dollars to go to building more to get people off the streets and the proper help that they need.
And second, animal abuse can not and should not be equalized in any way with human abuse. It debases the humans and elevates animals.
Now I wonder if California will learn any of these lessons? Or will we just continue out descent unabated?
HT: An Unmarried Man, aka David Quintero
Thanks to my pal An Unmarried Man, I was treated to this story that is, well bizarre seems to be too tame.
So, this dude Robert Edward De Shields, a frequent guest of the county and state prison system, committed an act that is beyond unthinkable.
Yes, Mr. De Shields committed the act of bestiality. He had sex with a dog. Not any kind of dog, mind you. But a puny chihuahua.
But hey, I guess when you are tweaking on crystal meth, a chihuahua looks like any other kind of hottie, right?
Yep, Mr. De Shields was high on meth and raped a chihuahua.
Needless to say, it was not his dog. Thank God. But horrified homeowners came home to find the tweaker, Mr. De Shields, holding the terrified dog. And after being examined by a vet, it was determined that the dog had severe injuries to his rectum and internal organs.
Now insert a big, fat eeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuwwwwwwwwww!
But wait! There is more!
Rightfully, Mr. De Shields was convicted of a crime.
But not just any crime.
Mr. De Shields was convicted of sexual assault of an animal. And he must register as a sex offender. And because of that, Mr. De Shields will have to serve time in state prison.
Ten years is the sentence.
Now because of the budget crisis that has made county jails extensions of state prisons, supposed low-level criminals are being sent to the jails to make room for, well the likes of Mr. De Shields.
But here is the thing.
Is it not a more severe sentence than if he had committed a similar act against a human?
And is this not elevating the rape of a dog, gross as it is, over the rape of a human?
Bingo on both counts!
The question is why in the hell was Mr. De Shields allowed to roam among the citizenry? Should he have not been in jail and or a mental institution?
Of course he should have been in one or the other. The dude has been in and out of prison since 1992. What is more amazing is that Mr. De Shields is wheelchair bound and yet raped a puppy.
Leave it to the London Daily Mail to delve a little deeper into this tale. As the report pointed out, the basis for seeking such a sentence is Jessica's Law. And it is the first time it has been applied to the rape of an animal.
But since the dude was high on meth, did he really know what the hell he was doing?
No. Being convicted of animal abuse under the basis of Jessica's Law is going way too far.
Yes, Mr. De Shields should be somewhere away from civilized society. But this is not the way to do it.
This puts the puppy at an equal level as human. It is the extension of the animal "rights" movement writ large.
As I have written many times, I am an animal lover. I do not like to see animal abuse. I do believe in animal welfare. That animals, even those bred for food, should be treated well. But animals are not human. They have some human characteristics, but they do not have the cognitive use of reason we do. Thus they do not and can not have "rights".
It is why there are laws against having sex with animals. Because we, the human, even under the influence of meth, have the ability to reason that it is not right nor natural to do such a thing.
But treating it at the same level in a court of law, well this is wrong.
While many real criminals will serve minimal time because of state prison overcrowding, a sledge hammer was taken in this case because there seemed to be no other way to get this degenerate, De Shields, off the streets.
Two lessons should be learned here.
One, druggies like Mr. De Shields are not going to be helped. They need to be institutionalized. Yes, I want my tax dollars to go to building more to get people off the streets and the proper help that they need.
And second, animal abuse can not and should not be equalized in any way with human abuse. It debases the humans and elevates animals.
Now I wonder if California will learn any of these lessons? Or will we just continue out descent unabated?
HT: An Unmarried Man, aka David Quintero
Santorum Still Rising
Well, if we out here thought that the Rick Santorum surge was a flash, it is one at the right time as another poll shows the former Pennsylvania senator at third place and rising.
Yesterday was the CNN/Time poll showing Mr. Santorum in third place at 16%. Today it is Rasmussen Reports also showing Mr. Santorum at third and 16%. And when you look at the Real Clear Politics polling average, guess who is in fourth and marginally trailing the former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich? Yep, it is Rick Santorum.
As I will continue to write, I am not making any endorsement of any kind.
But I caught the Gingrich Buzz before most of the experts. And same with the Santorum Surge.
The so-called political pros, pundits and analysts are getting a lot of this wrong.
All this "anti-Romney" talk is misplaced.
It is people looking for the most electable conservative. And that is why everyone is getting a look. To see if they are. Mitt Romney has the numbers that he has because he is the only candidate from 2008. People in Iowa know who he is. And believe me, if he showed the fire that he needs to, he would be leading a lot more in Iowa.
But Rick Santorum is peaking at the right time. A time that should gain him some GOP convention delegates. A time that voters in New Hampshire may take a real look and turn to him as the most electable conservative.
If Mr. Santorum continues to do well, he may do one of two things.
One, he could be the candidate to be the one that some GOP voters will rally to after all others collapse. It will happen. It could be Santorum vs. Romney down to the wire next summer in Tampa at the Republican convention.
Second, he maybe the one that a possible Romney nominee will pick to be vice-president. Think about it. If in the end it is Mr. Romney as the GOP nominee, he will need to do two things. Shore up support among So Cons. And have someone with Washington experience. And Mr. Santorum would fit both nicely. Oh, a third thing would be appealing to blue-collar Roman Catholics as Mr. Santorum also fits that bill.
Whatever the long term holds, there is no doubt that the Santorum Surge is real and should have other candidates very worried.
Yesterday was the CNN/Time poll showing Mr. Santorum in third place at 16%. Today it is Rasmussen Reports also showing Mr. Santorum at third and 16%. And when you look at the Real Clear Politics polling average, guess who is in fourth and marginally trailing the former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich? Yep, it is Rick Santorum.
As I will continue to write, I am not making any endorsement of any kind.
But I caught the Gingrich Buzz before most of the experts. And same with the Santorum Surge.
The so-called political pros, pundits and analysts are getting a lot of this wrong.
All this "anti-Romney" talk is misplaced.
It is people looking for the most electable conservative. And that is why everyone is getting a look. To see if they are. Mitt Romney has the numbers that he has because he is the only candidate from 2008. People in Iowa know who he is. And believe me, if he showed the fire that he needs to, he would be leading a lot more in Iowa.
But Rick Santorum is peaking at the right time. A time that should gain him some GOP convention delegates. A time that voters in New Hampshire may take a real look and turn to him as the most electable conservative.
If Mr. Santorum continues to do well, he may do one of two things.
One, he could be the candidate to be the one that some GOP voters will rally to after all others collapse. It will happen. It could be Santorum vs. Romney down to the wire next summer in Tampa at the Republican convention.
Second, he maybe the one that a possible Romney nominee will pick to be vice-president. Think about it. If in the end it is Mr. Romney as the GOP nominee, he will need to do two things. Shore up support among So Cons. And have someone with Washington experience. And Mr. Santorum would fit both nicely. Oh, a third thing would be appealing to blue-collar Roman Catholics as Mr. Santorum also fits that bill.
Whatever the long term holds, there is no doubt that the Santorum Surge is real and should have other candidates very worried.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
And The Santorum Surge Continues!
According to this CNN poll, it looks like potential Iowa Republican caucus goers are taking another look at the former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum.
Not only is Mr. Santorum in double digit territory at 16%, but has shot up to third place. And in the Real Clear Politics polling averages, Mr. Santorum is now in fifth place ahead of Congressman Michele Bachmann and gaining fast on the Texas governor Rick Perry.
Again, I am not on anyone's bandwagon. I just think that Iowa's voters have been kicking the tires and looking under the hood. And Mr. Santorum is peaking at the best time.
Can Mr. Santorum win in Iowa? I think now that is a better than 50/50 proposition.
Stay tuned for this race is going down to the wire.
Not only is Mr. Santorum in double digit territory at 16%, but has shot up to third place. And in the Real Clear Politics polling averages, Mr. Santorum is now in fifth place ahead of Congressman Michele Bachmann and gaining fast on the Texas governor Rick Perry.
Again, I am not on anyone's bandwagon. I just think that Iowa's voters have been kicking the tires and looking under the hood. And Mr. Santorum is peaking at the best time.
Can Mr. Santorum win in Iowa? I think now that is a better than 50/50 proposition.
Stay tuned for this race is going down to the wire.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Can Santorum Go Up The Middle For An Upset?
As Newt Gingrich slams Crazy Uncle Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, Crazy Uncle Ron slams Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney slamming both, is there someone that can rise above it all and win the Iowa caucus scheduled for next Tuesday?
That is the question posed by National Review's Rich Lowry.
However, Mr. Lowry does not provide an answer.
So, I will.
And I think that this could be the opening one Rick Santorum may be looking for to pull off an upset in the Iowa caucus.
Yeah, Mr. Santorum is not burning up the poll numbers according to the Real Clear Politics averages. But if you look at the graph closely, Mr. Santorum's numbers are moving up. The closest to him would be Congressman Michele Bachmann at nine percent and going down. Then there is Texas governor Rick Perry at a flat-line 12%.
When you consider that there are six announced candidates and one, Jon Huntsman, Jr. is all but writing off the Hawkeye State, It can take as little as 25% to win the caucus.
And when you think about the fact that Mr. Santorum's numbers are going up and he is the only candidate to visit all 99 Iowa counties, there is something potentially going on.
And again, if caucus goers don't like what they see as The Three Stooges in Messrs. Gingrich, Paul and Romney, many may take that second look at someone like Mr. Santorum.
John McCormick at The Weekly Standard does a great job explaining why Mr. Santorum could pull off a win in Iowa. And radio talker Hugh Hewitt, a known Romney supporter in 2008 and leaning his way now is fair. He is pointing out how the Leftywhore media is writing about Mr. Santorum as they write about Mr. Romney. All negative, all the time.
But I want to respond to this Mr. McCormick wrote in the negative about Mr. Santorum and the Leftywhore media GOP establishment Axis:
There are reasons why pundits say Santorum can’t win. One is that he’s washed up—having lost his Senate seat by 18 points to Bob Casey Jr. in 2006. Santorum counters that he won two of his three statewide races as a conservative running in Democratic Pennsylvania—first in the 1994 Republican revolution and again in 2000, when he won by 6 points while George W. Bush was losing the state by 5 points.
UGH! So what that Mr. Santorum lost his senate reelection bid in 2006. By 18 fricking points. The 2006 election was a Democrat massacre against the Republicans. And one of the scalps big on the Democrat mantle was a Pennsylvania senator named Santorum. Funny how the same Axis of Evil never went after some dolt named Lincoln Chafee. He ran as a Republican the same year for the Rhode Island senate seat. And he lost. In 2010, he ran as an independent for the governor's office in Rhode Island. And won. Even Ronald Reagan lost a couple of runs at the presidency.
And that somehow, Mr. Santroum is overly polarizing. Really? More than Mr. Polarizing himself, the Dear Leader, President Obama? Because Mr. Santorum actually believes what he says? As long as he can articulate it and back it up, he will not have a problem in any way.
The problem for Mr. Santorum is that he may not have peaked right to make a difference in Iowa. That is a real concern for Team Santorum.
But maybe all the fighting at the top of the field is the opening that Mr. Santorum needs to pull of the Iowa Upset.
That is the question posed by National Review's Rich Lowry.
However, Mr. Lowry does not provide an answer.
So, I will.
And I think that this could be the opening one Rick Santorum may be looking for to pull off an upset in the Iowa caucus.
Yeah, Mr. Santorum is not burning up the poll numbers according to the Real Clear Politics averages. But if you look at the graph closely, Mr. Santorum's numbers are moving up. The closest to him would be Congressman Michele Bachmann at nine percent and going down. Then there is Texas governor Rick Perry at a flat-line 12%.
When you consider that there are six announced candidates and one, Jon Huntsman, Jr. is all but writing off the Hawkeye State, It can take as little as 25% to win the caucus.
And when you think about the fact that Mr. Santorum's numbers are going up and he is the only candidate to visit all 99 Iowa counties, there is something potentially going on.
And again, if caucus goers don't like what they see as The Three Stooges in Messrs. Gingrich, Paul and Romney, many may take that second look at someone like Mr. Santorum.
John McCormick at The Weekly Standard does a great job explaining why Mr. Santorum could pull off a win in Iowa. And radio talker Hugh Hewitt, a known Romney supporter in 2008 and leaning his way now is fair. He is pointing out how the Leftywhore media is writing about Mr. Santorum as they write about Mr. Romney. All negative, all the time.
But I want to respond to this Mr. McCormick wrote in the negative about Mr. Santorum and the Leftywhore media GOP establishment Axis:
There are reasons why pundits say Santorum can’t win. One is that he’s washed up—having lost his Senate seat by 18 points to Bob Casey Jr. in 2006. Santorum counters that he won two of his three statewide races as a conservative running in Democratic Pennsylvania—first in the 1994 Republican revolution and again in 2000, when he won by 6 points while George W. Bush was losing the state by 5 points.
UGH! So what that Mr. Santorum lost his senate reelection bid in 2006. By 18 fricking points. The 2006 election was a Democrat massacre against the Republicans. And one of the scalps big on the Democrat mantle was a Pennsylvania senator named Santorum. Funny how the same Axis of Evil never went after some dolt named Lincoln Chafee. He ran as a Republican the same year for the Rhode Island senate seat. And he lost. In 2010, he ran as an independent for the governor's office in Rhode Island. And won. Even Ronald Reagan lost a couple of runs at the presidency.
And that somehow, Mr. Santroum is overly polarizing. Really? More than Mr. Polarizing himself, the Dear Leader, President Obama? Because Mr. Santorum actually believes what he says? As long as he can articulate it and back it up, he will not have a problem in any way.
The problem for Mr. Santorum is that he may not have peaked right to make a difference in Iowa. That is a real concern for Team Santorum.
But maybe all the fighting at the top of the field is the opening that Mr. Santorum needs to pull of the Iowa Upset.
Tebow Hating Sinks To A New Low
I know that you will be shocked to know that one no-so funny man Bill Maher tweeted a very nasty comment about Denver Bronco starting quarterback Tim Tebow over the past weekend.
Mr. Maher's tweet was in reaction to the Broncos being blown out by the Buffalo Bills this past weekend by a score of 40-14.
Warning, this tweet will be repeated verbatim. No d---es.
And here it is:
"Wow! Jesus just fucked #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.”
So nice! So, what is the word. Eloquent. If you happen to be at a bar and drunk off your rear end.
But what can one expect from this douchebrain.
Yeah, thats right!
Bill Maher is a douchebrain!
To unpack this, think about the way Mr. Maher describes Jesus Christ. As some homosexual getting off on seeing a bad game performed by Mr. Tebow. Really?
And to add more insult, the outward implication is that Jesus does not care about Mr. Tebow because this football game was played on Christmas Eve. Oh, yeah, "X-mas" Eve. X-Men, X-mas, yeah, whatever. But the vowed atheist Mr. Maher somehow brings in Hell, Satan and Adolf Hitler having a grand ol' time at Mr. Tebow's expense.
OK, let me point this out.
Some people think that athletes who are Christan believers think that God is actually involved in game outcomes.
No, God does not care about the outcome of any given sporting event. I believe that what God does care about is how said athlete played the game, or whatever it is. That the athlete gave it his or her all. And that he or she did not play dirty or cheap.
So, get that concept out of your mind.
In regards to Mr. Tebow, guess what folks? Psst! Tim Tebow is. . .human! Thus he is bound by the same things as the rest of us. And that includes having a really lousy game.
But Mr. Tebow, unlike Mr. Maher, showed a lot of class in his tweet about the game:
"Tough game today but what's most important is being able to celebrate the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas everyone GB2."
And "GB2" is for "God Bless and Go Broncos.
And Mr. Tebow has the priorities right. It was a tough game for him. He was intercepted four times. And he just had a bad day. But it was Christmas Eve and his mind was on the meaning of the day. To celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It was not cursing God for his bad day. Or that the Broncos lost.
But it is the visceral hate that is being exhibited by the Tebow Haters.
Might I suggest that Mr. Maher would never had tweeted this if Mr. Tim Tebow was Abdul Mohammad Tebow:
“Wow, Mohammad just f**ked #AbdulMohammadTebow bad! And during Ramadan! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.”
No, I do not think that the chicken that Mr. Maher is would have gone off on that version of Mr. Tebow.
But it is very easy to write such things about someone like Mr. Tebow. And he did what anyone should do. Ignore the little man. He has more important things to do.
So it is for people like me to point out the hypocrisy of someone like Mr. Maher. His real animus is against Christians. Sure, he has made a comment here and there about Islam. But really, knowing anything about Mr. Maher, do you really think that the example I presented above would have been done? Tolerated? No. But when it comes to Christians, the crickets are chirping.
While Mr. Tebow seems to have driven a lot of people crazy with his praying after touchdowns-Tebowing-this tweet of Mr. Maher shows a new low in the Tebow Hate.
Mr. Maher's tweet was in reaction to the Broncos being blown out by the Buffalo Bills this past weekend by a score of 40-14.
Warning, this tweet will be repeated verbatim. No d---es.
And here it is:
"Wow! Jesus just fucked #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.”
So nice! So, what is the word. Eloquent. If you happen to be at a bar and drunk off your rear end.
But what can one expect from this douchebrain.
Yeah, thats right!
Bill Maher is a douchebrain!
To unpack this, think about the way Mr. Maher describes Jesus Christ. As some homosexual getting off on seeing a bad game performed by Mr. Tebow. Really?
And to add more insult, the outward implication is that Jesus does not care about Mr. Tebow because this football game was played on Christmas Eve. Oh, yeah, "X-mas" Eve. X-Men, X-mas, yeah, whatever. But the vowed atheist Mr. Maher somehow brings in Hell, Satan and Adolf Hitler having a grand ol' time at Mr. Tebow's expense.
OK, let me point this out.
Some people think that athletes who are Christan believers think that God is actually involved in game outcomes.
No, God does not care about the outcome of any given sporting event. I believe that what God does care about is how said athlete played the game, or whatever it is. That the athlete gave it his or her all. And that he or she did not play dirty or cheap.
So, get that concept out of your mind.
In regards to Mr. Tebow, guess what folks? Psst! Tim Tebow is. . .human! Thus he is bound by the same things as the rest of us. And that includes having a really lousy game.
But Mr. Tebow, unlike Mr. Maher, showed a lot of class in his tweet about the game:
"Tough game today but what's most important is being able to celebrate the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas everyone GB2."
And "GB2" is for "God Bless and Go Broncos.
And Mr. Tebow has the priorities right. It was a tough game for him. He was intercepted four times. And he just had a bad day. But it was Christmas Eve and his mind was on the meaning of the day. To celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It was not cursing God for his bad day. Or that the Broncos lost.
But it is the visceral hate that is being exhibited by the Tebow Haters.
Might I suggest that Mr. Maher would never had tweeted this if Mr. Tim Tebow was Abdul Mohammad Tebow:
“Wow, Mohammad just f**ked #AbdulMohammadTebow bad! And during Ramadan! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.”
No, I do not think that the chicken that Mr. Maher is would have gone off on that version of Mr. Tebow.
But it is very easy to write such things about someone like Mr. Tebow. And he did what anyone should do. Ignore the little man. He has more important things to do.
So it is for people like me to point out the hypocrisy of someone like Mr. Maher. His real animus is against Christians. Sure, he has made a comment here and there about Islam. But really, knowing anything about Mr. Maher, do you really think that the example I presented above would have been done? Tolerated? No. But when it comes to Christians, the crickets are chirping.
While Mr. Tebow seems to have driven a lot of people crazy with his praying after touchdowns-Tebowing-this tweet of Mr. Maher shows a new low in the Tebow Hate.
Monday, December 26, 2011
More Dirt On Crazy Uncle Ron Paul
As much as I do not want to, I have to share this from a former Crazy Uncle Ron Paul aide.Now, I do not want to psychoanalyze this too much.
But this is not some low-level flunky but Eric Dondero and he writes how close he was on the post heading.
But a couple of take aways.
One, Crazy Uncle Ron talks a great game about wanting to "leave people alone". And that is all well and good.
And maybe he does not publicly have a problem with homosexuals. But in several instances, well he is not all that comfortable being around them.
And, here is a big shock.
Crazy Uncle Ron not only does not support Israel, but hates the very existence of the State of Israel.
But, he has no problem with the Joos, per se.
Kind of like he has no problem with homosexuals. So long as he does not have to be around them. Maybe the same is how he feels about. . .the Joos!
What this shows is that if this is the leader of Libertarian thought in the United States, they need a new leader.
More will come from this, I am certain.
But this is not some low-level flunky but Eric Dondero and he writes how close he was on the post heading.
But a couple of take aways.
One, Crazy Uncle Ron talks a great game about wanting to "leave people alone". And that is all well and good.
And maybe he does not publicly have a problem with homosexuals. But in several instances, well he is not all that comfortable being around them.
And, here is a big shock.
Crazy Uncle Ron not only does not support Israel, but hates the very existence of the State of Israel.
But, he has no problem with the Joos, per se.
Kind of like he has no problem with homosexuals. So long as he does not have to be around them. Maybe the same is how he feels about. . .the Joos!
What this shows is that if this is the leader of Libertarian thought in the United States, they need a new leader.
More will come from this, I am certain.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
A Lot Of Christmas Cheer
Today is Christmas Day. It is a day to share in the birth of Jesus Christ. While of course the Holy Bible does not designate today the day of His birth, thanks to those Christians that came before us, we celebrate it today.
In the spirit of Christmas, I thought that I would share a couple of stories, and the best explanation of Christmas I know.
First, this Christmas season showed some people were extremely generous and helping those less fortunate.
Several department stores have layaway programs. Essentially, for a processing fee and weekly payments, you can shop for items, make the payments and pickup when the payments are completed. Three major retailers have been doing this and they are K-Mart, Sears and WalMart.
Keep in mind that people who use layaway programs are not exactly well-off financially. Usually these are people that live paycheck to paycheck. If they are lucky.
There have been many stories of so-called Layaway Angels this Christmas season. They are people that go into a store and payoff one or two people's layaways. And that happened locally at a K-Mart in West Covina, California. In the linked article, a couple were just going to pay up to $150. But the husband said what ever $500 will pay off.
Amazing.
And in the article, someone paid off over 175 layaways at a Washington, D. C. K-Mart. And that totalled over $20,000.
In this day of serious economic hardship, it is wonderful to see so many people willing to do this act of kindness for so many who can not do for themselves.
Another bit of great news is to find out that many Islamic people in the So Cal area are not turned off by Christmas. In fact, many actually celebrate it in their own way.
According to this article, for many local Islamics, it is a way to assimilate with their neighbors. And they do not see having a Christmas tree as somehow debasing their religion.
In fact, in the Traband household, the family has a Christmas tree. Puts out treats for Santa. And treats for the family dog.
But they do not put any decidedly Christian ornaments on their tree.
And the mother, Sahira Traband, has what I believe is the right perspective for those who are not Christian yet partake in the holiday:
"The magic of Christmas is the part we celebrate."
Spot on, Sahira.
One does not have to be a Christian to get the message of the holiday as it has evolved. Especially in the United States.
People like this I think get it. While too many people have a bug about Christmas, I think that they should just go with it rather that fight something that can mean many things to different people.
And that leads me to this.
To me, this is the best explanation of the meaning of Christmas.
It is Linus Van Pelt giving the Gospel of Luke's account of the birth of Jesus. It is from the 1965 Christmas classic "A Charlie Brown Christmas".
Every year I watch it twice if I can. I often tell Mrs. RVFTLC that this special could never be made for television today. for it delivers the decidedly Christian message in the middle of the show.
Amazing.
But that is what Christmas should be all about. And for me is all about.
From the Right View From The Left Coast family, Mrs. RVFTLC and Scout the Wonder Dog, we wish you a very Merry Christmas!
In the spirit of Christmas, I thought that I would share a couple of stories, and the best explanation of Christmas I know.
First, this Christmas season showed some people were extremely generous and helping those less fortunate.
Several department stores have layaway programs. Essentially, for a processing fee and weekly payments, you can shop for items, make the payments and pickup when the payments are completed. Three major retailers have been doing this and they are K-Mart, Sears and WalMart.
Keep in mind that people who use layaway programs are not exactly well-off financially. Usually these are people that live paycheck to paycheck. If they are lucky.
There have been many stories of so-called Layaway Angels this Christmas season. They are people that go into a store and payoff one or two people's layaways. And that happened locally at a K-Mart in West Covina, California. In the linked article, a couple were just going to pay up to $150. But the husband said what ever $500 will pay off.
Amazing.
And in the article, someone paid off over 175 layaways at a Washington, D. C. K-Mart. And that totalled over $20,000.
In this day of serious economic hardship, it is wonderful to see so many people willing to do this act of kindness for so many who can not do for themselves.
Another bit of great news is to find out that many Islamic people in the So Cal area are not turned off by Christmas. In fact, many actually celebrate it in their own way.
According to this article, for many local Islamics, it is a way to assimilate with their neighbors. And they do not see having a Christmas tree as somehow debasing their religion.
In fact, in the Traband household, the family has a Christmas tree. Puts out treats for Santa. And treats for the family dog.
But they do not put any decidedly Christian ornaments on their tree.
And the mother, Sahira Traband, has what I believe is the right perspective for those who are not Christian yet partake in the holiday:
"The magic of Christmas is the part we celebrate."
Spot on, Sahira.
One does not have to be a Christian to get the message of the holiday as it has evolved. Especially in the United States.
People like this I think get it. While too many people have a bug about Christmas, I think that they should just go with it rather that fight something that can mean many things to different people.
And that leads me to this.
To me, this is the best explanation of the meaning of Christmas.
It is Linus Van Pelt giving the Gospel of Luke's account of the birth of Jesus. It is from the 1965 Christmas classic "A Charlie Brown Christmas".
Every year I watch it twice if I can. I often tell Mrs. RVFTLC that this special could never be made for television today. for it delivers the decidedly Christian message in the middle of the show.
Amazing.
But that is what Christmas should be all about. And for me is all about.
From the Right View From The Left Coast family, Mrs. RVFTLC and Scout the Wonder Dog, we wish you a very Merry Christmas!
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Another Obligartory Yes, Christians CAN Vote For Non-Christians Post
Sigh! And a double face-palm.
Once again, a crazy Christian pastor is telling his flock, and by extension, anyone who is a Christian, that no, we can not vote for Mitt Romney for president.
I think that you know why. But I am obliged to delve into this once again.
Because Mr. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You know. The eeeeevvvvviiilllll Mormons.
The pastor in question is one Steven Andrew of a group called USA Christian ministries. And according to this article on The Blaze, Pastor Andrew is mad that Pastor Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, said in a interview that it is OK for Evangelical Christians to vote for a Mormon for president. Or for any office for that matter.
Well, Pastor Andrew believes it is a sin to vote for a non-Christian for office. So much so that he wants Pastor Graham to "repent".
Really?!
Because a true Christian can not vote for someone like Mitt Romney and or Jon Huntsman, Jr. No, no, no. And if one is a Buddhist, the aforementioned Mormon or Islamic, forget it. Can't vote for them. The exact quote from Pastor Andrew is this:
Consequences of Voting for Ungodly People
Voting for non-Christians (Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists and others), or people who just say they are Christians but don’t rule in the fear God, results in God’s Judgment.
I am going to bet that Pastor Andrew did not quite want to come out and say this one particular group. But I am certain in another time, this would top the others.
The. . .Joos!
OK, I consider myself a Christian. Sure, I belong to the Episcopal Church. And yeah, they need a lot of prayer. But I have voted for people that were probably not Christians.
And you know what?
I forgot another group that Pastor Andrew would have mentioned in another time or place.
The Roman Catholics.
Many people who call themselves Christians do not think that RCs are really Christians.
See, I vote for a candidate that is closest to my conservative policies. If that person is not a Christian, but is a conservative, I do not have a problem. Because we will agree on issues probably more than 90% of the time. Maybe on religion we would not. But, especially for president, I am voting for the person that can lead the United States. I am not voting for the Christian Theologian in Chief.
Sure, I want more people of faith to be involved in politics. And that maybe a non-Christian that I will possibly vote for.
So, regular readers may note that in 2008, I was all in for Mitt Romney for president. And the Mormon thing, really does not bother me. Because in a strange way, on some of the so-called social issues, my thinking is more in line with Mormons than my own Episcopal Church. And if Nr. Romney is the Republican presidential nominee, I will be for him with no doubts. Mormon and all.
We are a Christian nation in regards to the majority religion. The founders were aware of that heritage. But they were aware of the co-mingling of church and state. They did not want one religion, more precisely one form of Christianity to be the religion of the whole nation. And so far for well over 230 years.
Again, I want to assure wavering Christians that should Mr. Romney or Mr.Huntsman, Jr. become president this.
Don't look for a mass of Mormon missionaries on bikes swarming the United States direct from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And no, the capital will not be moved to Salt Lake City. And no, the SLC Mormon Temple will not become the new capitol building.
The business of the United States will go on. As it has for over 230 years.
So my fellow Christians, please do not pay attention to Pastor Andrew. And pay attention to Pastor Graham. For I leave you with this straight from the words of Pastor Graham:
“I think when we’re voting for president we need to get the person who is absolutely the most qualified. You can have the nicest guy and he can be a Christian and just wonderful but have absolutely no clue as to how to run a country.”
Once again, a crazy Christian pastor is telling his flock, and by extension, anyone who is a Christian, that no, we can not vote for Mitt Romney for president.
I think that you know why. But I am obliged to delve into this once again.
Because Mr. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You know. The eeeeevvvvviiilllll Mormons.
The pastor in question is one Steven Andrew of a group called USA Christian ministries. And according to this article on The Blaze, Pastor Andrew is mad that Pastor Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, said in a interview that it is OK for Evangelical Christians to vote for a Mormon for president. Or for any office for that matter.
Well, Pastor Andrew believes it is a sin to vote for a non-Christian for office. So much so that he wants Pastor Graham to "repent".
Really?!
Because a true Christian can not vote for someone like Mitt Romney and or Jon Huntsman, Jr. No, no, no. And if one is a Buddhist, the aforementioned Mormon or Islamic, forget it. Can't vote for them. The exact quote from Pastor Andrew is this:
Consequences of Voting for Ungodly People
Voting for non-Christians (Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists and others), or people who just say they are Christians but don’t rule in the fear God, results in God’s Judgment.
I am going to bet that Pastor Andrew did not quite want to come out and say this one particular group. But I am certain in another time, this would top the others.
The. . .Joos!
OK, I consider myself a Christian. Sure, I belong to the Episcopal Church. And yeah, they need a lot of prayer. But I have voted for people that were probably not Christians.
And you know what?
I forgot another group that Pastor Andrew would have mentioned in another time or place.
The Roman Catholics.
Many people who call themselves Christians do not think that RCs are really Christians.
See, I vote for a candidate that is closest to my conservative policies. If that person is not a Christian, but is a conservative, I do not have a problem. Because we will agree on issues probably more than 90% of the time. Maybe on religion we would not. But, especially for president, I am voting for the person that can lead the United States. I am not voting for the Christian Theologian in Chief.
Sure, I want more people of faith to be involved in politics. And that maybe a non-Christian that I will possibly vote for.
So, regular readers may note that in 2008, I was all in for Mitt Romney for president. And the Mormon thing, really does not bother me. Because in a strange way, on some of the so-called social issues, my thinking is more in line with Mormons than my own Episcopal Church. And if Nr. Romney is the Republican presidential nominee, I will be for him with no doubts. Mormon and all.
We are a Christian nation in regards to the majority religion. The founders were aware of that heritage. But they were aware of the co-mingling of church and state. They did not want one religion, more precisely one form of Christianity to be the religion of the whole nation. And so far for well over 230 years.
Again, I want to assure wavering Christians that should Mr. Romney or Mr.Huntsman, Jr. become president this.
Don't look for a mass of Mormon missionaries on bikes swarming the United States direct from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And no, the capital will not be moved to Salt Lake City. And no, the SLC Mormon Temple will not become the new capitol building.
The business of the United States will go on. As it has for over 230 years.
So my fellow Christians, please do not pay attention to Pastor Andrew. And pay attention to Pastor Graham. For I leave you with this straight from the words of Pastor Graham:
“I think when we’re voting for president we need to get the person who is absolutely the most qualified. You can have the nicest guy and he can be a Christian and just wonderful but have absolutely no clue as to how to run a country.”
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Well, Well, Well. . .Here Is The Beginning Of The Santorum Surge
Ok, you may look at this and shrug your shoulders. You may even say, "Huh?" Fine.
But looking at this poll from Rassmussen, courtesy of The Corner at National Review Online shows, surprise, surprise!
The former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum gains four percentage points moving into double-digits for the first time. And he is tied with Texas governor, Rick Perry, for fourth place.
In looking at the graph at the link, it is important to note that he has the largest gain of any candidate. In fact, Gov. Perry is a flat-line 10%. And Congressman Michele Bachmann has lost three percent.
Do you think that some of that is Mrs. Bachmann's supporters feeling she may not have it for the long run campaign? Possibly some Herman Cain supporters finding their new home?
Keep all this in mind.
Mr. Santorum has already toured all 99 of Iowa's counties at least once. Congressman Bachmann is just making that run now. Gov. Perry and the actual front runners are depending a lot on media and not as much on the kind of campaigning that can and does win in Iowa.
And guess what?
This movement can put Mr. Santorum in one of the top three slots. Maybe not a win, but a strong showing that can gain some traction going into New Hampshire.
I have suggested that Mr. Santorum was being sold short by, well almost everyone. And now people are getting serious about who they are looking at for caucus night, January 3, 2012.
I think that the caucus results are looking to be a very interesting result.
And the Santorum Surge is coming just at the right time.
But looking at this poll from Rassmussen, courtesy of The Corner at National Review Online shows, surprise, surprise!
The former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum gains four percentage points moving into double-digits for the first time. And he is tied with Texas governor, Rick Perry, for fourth place.
In looking at the graph at the link, it is important to note that he has the largest gain of any candidate. In fact, Gov. Perry is a flat-line 10%. And Congressman Michele Bachmann has lost three percent.
Do you think that some of that is Mrs. Bachmann's supporters feeling she may not have it for the long run campaign? Possibly some Herman Cain supporters finding their new home?
Keep all this in mind.
Mr. Santorum has already toured all 99 of Iowa's counties at least once. Congressman Bachmann is just making that run now. Gov. Perry and the actual front runners are depending a lot on media and not as much on the kind of campaigning that can and does win in Iowa.
And guess what?
This movement can put Mr. Santorum in one of the top three slots. Maybe not a win, but a strong showing that can gain some traction going into New Hampshire.
I have suggested that Mr. Santorum was being sold short by, well almost everyone. And now people are getting serious about who they are looking at for caucus night, January 3, 2012.
I think that the caucus results are looking to be a very interesting result.
And the Santorum Surge is coming just at the right time.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Does Crazy Uncle Ron Paul Support Traitors?
Well, of course Republican presidential candidate Crazy Uncle Ron Paul supports an alleged traitor in the person of one Bradley Manning.
Mr. Manning is the linchpin of the WikiLeaks saga that made Julian Assange a hero of the left.
But Mr. Manning handed classified information that only emboldened our enemies. All in the name of the armed forces policy of dealing with homosexual soldiers known as "Don't ask, don't tell".
Yet in the eyes of Crazy Uncle Ron, this makes Mr. Manning a "patriot" and a "hero" rather than the traitor and snake that he is.
That is what is reported in Accuracy In Media in this story.
If so, this should end the Crazy Uncle Ron presidential candidacy.
It will not, but it should.
I get it.
Crazy Uncle Ron is so against the War Against Islamofacsist Terror that he would support an unbalanced, troubled man, Manning, over his own national security.
While Crazy Uncle Ron is accusing fellow Republican presidential candidate and Congressman Michele Bachmann of "hating" Islamics, why is there any media coverage about Crazy Uncle Ron and his anti-Black and clear anti-Semitic writings?
Oh, well he tries the defense that he did not write clearly racist articles. Yet they were under his moniker "Ron Paul Political Report" or "Ron Paul Survival Report".
But hey, I have one for you.
This is my blog. I am responsible for everything that I write here. I write and edit the whole thing. And I have been around a newsroom and the production end. And an editor is responsible for his or his section and or page. And they read what goes in.
But this is a digression from the dangerous point.
That Crazy Uncle Ron sees Mr. Manning as little more than a garden variety whistleblower.
Even the Obama administration does not see him in such a heroic light.
For a major party candidate to support the criminal activities that will put our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines at greater risk is the defination of insanity.
I have never thought much of this ol' codger. And now, his open support of a traitor as Bradley Manning makes me think even less of Crazy Uncle Ron Paul.
Mr. Manning is the linchpin of the WikiLeaks saga that made Julian Assange a hero of the left.
But Mr. Manning handed classified information that only emboldened our enemies. All in the name of the armed forces policy of dealing with homosexual soldiers known as "Don't ask, don't tell".
Yet in the eyes of Crazy Uncle Ron, this makes Mr. Manning a "patriot" and a "hero" rather than the traitor and snake that he is.
That is what is reported in Accuracy In Media in this story.
If so, this should end the Crazy Uncle Ron presidential candidacy.
It will not, but it should.
I get it.
Crazy Uncle Ron is so against the War Against Islamofacsist Terror that he would support an unbalanced, troubled man, Manning, over his own national security.
While Crazy Uncle Ron is accusing fellow Republican presidential candidate and Congressman Michele Bachmann of "hating" Islamics, why is there any media coverage about Crazy Uncle Ron and his anti-Black and clear anti-Semitic writings?
Oh, well he tries the defense that he did not write clearly racist articles. Yet they were under his moniker "Ron Paul Political Report" or "Ron Paul Survival Report".
But hey, I have one for you.
This is my blog. I am responsible for everything that I write here. I write and edit the whole thing. And I have been around a newsroom and the production end. And an editor is responsible for his or his section and or page. And they read what goes in.
But this is a digression from the dangerous point.
That Crazy Uncle Ron sees Mr. Manning as little more than a garden variety whistleblower.
Even the Obama administration does not see him in such a heroic light.
For a major party candidate to support the criminal activities that will put our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines at greater risk is the defination of insanity.
I have never thought much of this ol' codger. And now, his open support of a traitor as Bradley Manning makes me think even less of Crazy Uncle Ron Paul.
Are We Going To See The Santorum Surge?
Well, this dovetails nicely in this post your humble blogger wrote recently about Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
Now that the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is peaking and possibly faltering, it appears that Mr. Santorum is getting the kind of backing that Iowa GOPers will want to see when they go to caucus two weeks from today.
And the Iowa GOP is not much different than many state parties. More moderate in the cities and suburbs and more conservative in the small towns and the rural areas.
And Western Iowa GOPers may take the endorsement from Family Leader CEO Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley to be what sways them in the caucuses. Western Iowa GOPers are much more conservative.
While Mr. Santorum seems to languish in poll after poll, I would not be surprised to see him get the third place or higher that I believe he will get when all is said and done.
Say what you want but with Mr. Santorum, what you see is what you get. And he is not shy about his social conservatism.
It will do him well in a state like Iowa. But I think it hurts in New Hampshire. So he would get a let down there. But has a real chance in South Carolina and even Florida.
What Mr. Santorum needs to do to gain traction beyond Iowa is to promote his overall conservatism. He needs to play up his economic and national security cred. He does have that as a member of congress and a senator.
A stong surge in Iowa has to force Mr. Santorum to broaden his candidacy. Because if he does finish strong, so cons are going to start to feel confident that he is their guy. They will be inclined to openly support Mr. Santorum. But he needs to address such foreign policy questions as this.
How would a President Santorum deal with the change in leadership in Red Korea? Now that the original Dear Leader is burning in hell, what will he do that contrasts him with our Dear Leader, President Obama. It is of great importance to know that from Mr. Santorum.
Or how would a President Santorum approach long-term tax reform? Would he support a flat tax? A national sales tax? A 9-9-9-like plan? How he answers that will determine if he can appeal beyond his base of so cons.
But, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average of potential Iowa caucus-goers, Mr. Santorum is at 6.3%. But unlike other flash-in-the-pans like the Texas governor, Rick Perry, or congressman Michele Bachmann, Mr. Santorum may be peaking at the right time. Also, as I noted, Mr. Santorum has campaigned in all of Iowa's 99 counties. In a state like Iowa, that can only help.
Come back in a week to see if indeed there is the Santorum Surge. I think we will all be surprised.
Now that the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is peaking and possibly faltering, it appears that Mr. Santorum is getting the kind of backing that Iowa GOPers will want to see when they go to caucus two weeks from today.
And the Iowa GOP is not much different than many state parties. More moderate in the cities and suburbs and more conservative in the small towns and the rural areas.
And Western Iowa GOPers may take the endorsement from Family Leader CEO Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley to be what sways them in the caucuses. Western Iowa GOPers are much more conservative.
While Mr. Santorum seems to languish in poll after poll, I would not be surprised to see him get the third place or higher that I believe he will get when all is said and done.
Say what you want but with Mr. Santorum, what you see is what you get. And he is not shy about his social conservatism.
It will do him well in a state like Iowa. But I think it hurts in New Hampshire. So he would get a let down there. But has a real chance in South Carolina and even Florida.
What Mr. Santorum needs to do to gain traction beyond Iowa is to promote his overall conservatism. He needs to play up his economic and national security cred. He does have that as a member of congress and a senator.
A stong surge in Iowa has to force Mr. Santorum to broaden his candidacy. Because if he does finish strong, so cons are going to start to feel confident that he is their guy. They will be inclined to openly support Mr. Santorum. But he needs to address such foreign policy questions as this.
How would a President Santorum deal with the change in leadership in Red Korea? Now that the original Dear Leader is burning in hell, what will he do that contrasts him with our Dear Leader, President Obama. It is of great importance to know that from Mr. Santorum.
Or how would a President Santorum approach long-term tax reform? Would he support a flat tax? A national sales tax? A 9-9-9-like plan? How he answers that will determine if he can appeal beyond his base of so cons.
But, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average of potential Iowa caucus-goers, Mr. Santorum is at 6.3%. But unlike other flash-in-the-pans like the Texas governor, Rick Perry, or congressman Michele Bachmann, Mr. Santorum may be peaking at the right time. Also, as I noted, Mr. Santorum has campaigned in all of Iowa's 99 counties. In a state like Iowa, that can only help.
Come back in a week to see if indeed there is the Santorum Surge. I think we will all be surprised.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The Original Dear Leader Dies
According to Red Korean state television, the original Dear Leader, Kim Jung Il has gone to the gates of Hell and left this world at the age of 69.
Kim, the hereditary heir to the Communist throne of North Korea, had a history of diabetes and heart disease. And liked to live the good life of booze, broads and food.
This was done while his people suffer with little to eat, barely subsistence living and one of the poorest nation's in the world.
But this is par for the course of how the communist world has operated throughout the 20th century. Talking a great game about the "people", the "workers", the "children". And yet enslaving them to a death sentence of fear and trepidation rather than the liberation communism promised.
The next heir apparent is, surprise, another son. No, not a Son of a Bitch, but a son of the Dear Leader. That would be Kim Jung Un.
Do you not find it odd that a vowed communist state would keep power in the hands of one family? As if it was some kind of monarchy. Well, I guess that the cult of personality is what counts in commieland, right?
And if one thinks that the economic basket case that is North Korea is simply a figment of our imagination in the West, look at this Wikipedia entry and the photo to the right. The dark area at night is North Korea. To the north is Red China. To the south is the highly prosperous South Korea.
The reality is that until one of the Kim's open up North Korea to outside investment and thus capitalism, it will continue to be a harsh place to live on this earth.
However, one of the causes of that misery, Kim Jong Il is in his just rewards now.
Kim, the hereditary heir to the Communist throne of North Korea, had a history of diabetes and heart disease. And liked to live the good life of booze, broads and food.
This was done while his people suffer with little to eat, barely subsistence living and one of the poorest nation's in the world.
But this is par for the course of how the communist world has operated throughout the 20th century. Talking a great game about the "people", the "workers", the "children". And yet enslaving them to a death sentence of fear and trepidation rather than the liberation communism promised.
The next heir apparent is, surprise, another son. No, not a Son of a Bitch, but a son of the Dear Leader. That would be Kim Jung Un.
Do you not find it odd that a vowed communist state would keep power in the hands of one family? As if it was some kind of monarchy. Well, I guess that the cult of personality is what counts in commieland, right?
And if one thinks that the economic basket case that is North Korea is simply a figment of our imagination in the West, look at this Wikipedia entry and the photo to the right. The dark area at night is North Korea. To the north is Red China. To the south is the highly prosperous South Korea.
The reality is that until one of the Kim's open up North Korea to outside investment and thus capitalism, it will continue to be a harsh place to live on this earth.
However, one of the causes of that misery, Kim Jong Il is in his just rewards now.
One Conservative's Case For Romney
Much ado has been made about a recent editorial in National Review that essentially says nominating someone like a Newt Gingrich would be a disaster. Said editorial says that there are only three serious candidates. One is former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. One is the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. And the last and disqualifying one to me is the former Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr.
That last one to me makes the otherwise thoughtful editorial a joke. Again, anyone that believes in Globaloney Warming, and Mr. Huntsman, Jr. does, can never be seriously considered for the Republican nomination for Dog Catcher.
So, I read a good piece by another National Review writer, Rameseh Ponnuru, and strong conservative case for Mitt Romney to be the Republican presidential nominee.
Before I continue, this is not any endorsement of Mr. Romney. I think if Republicans do nominate him, he will be an excellent antidote to the poison that is the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the left in general.
Mr. Ponnuru makes a very good point. That while Mr. Romney was governor of Massachusetts, while probably too conservative for many, he was to the left of the national Republican party. And he has moved right since then. But here is the more important point made by Mr. Ponnuru:
It’s true that Romney took a sharp right turn when he moved from state to national politics. But it’s also true that in 2008 he was the candidate behind whom Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, among other conservative notables, said that the conservative movement should rally in order to stop John McCain from getting the nomination. He has not moved left since that time. His positions on policy questions are almost all the same as they were then. On a few issues he has moved right: He now favors a market-oriented reform to Medicare, for example.
If Romney was to McCain’s right then, he is still. He’s to George W. Bush’s right, too. Bush never came out for the Medicare reform Romney has endorsed. Bush never said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, either. Romney has. Romney’s long list of policy advisers includes people who are, within their fields, roughly in sync with the politics of the Bush administration or to its right; almost nobody is significantly to its left.
What Mr. Ponnuru points out is that in many ways, George W. Bush was not all that conservative. I will point out the whole No Child Left Behind scam. It was the federal government overreaching in nationalizing primary school education. Not a good thing whatsoever. There are others, as Mr. Ponnuru points out. But on many very important issues to conservatives, Mr. Romney is to the right of Mr. Bush and one Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. That is reassuring to me.
And Mr. Ponnuru makes a good point that the congress a potential President Romney will be dealing with will be a Republican one. A conservative Republican one. One that will send legislation overturning Obamacare. To cut and or reform taxes. To reform entitlements. These are things that a Republican governor in Massachusetts can not do on a good day. Yet at the national level with the Republicans in control of the legislative and executive branch, these things can and would be done.
Lets face it about this whole campaign.
Conservatives want to be able to actually govern as conservatives.
While the Republican party did control congress and the presidency much of 2001-2007, it was not a conservative one. It was one that gave a moderate president like George W. Bush way too much leeway on issues that it should have never let get out of the station. This congress and the next one will be decidedly conservative. It will set the agenda. Not the Republican White House. That will be a serious shift.
But Mr. Ponnuru does offer a rightful caution.
While I and many others believe that anyone can defeat the Dear Leader, President Obama, it is not a given. One should not write him off.
I agree with that assessment.
And Mr. Ponnuru makes the obvious point. That the whole caucus/primary campaign season is to air all this out.
But once it ends, we conservatives unite behind the Republican presidential nominee. Because he, or she, will need all the stops to be pulled out to defeat the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats any and everywhere throughout the United States.
It begins by having this campaign within the Republican party. It will end, God willing, with a new Republican president. And that may just very well be Mitt Romney.
That last one to me makes the otherwise thoughtful editorial a joke. Again, anyone that believes in Globaloney Warming, and Mr. Huntsman, Jr. does, can never be seriously considered for the Republican nomination for Dog Catcher.
So, I read a good piece by another National Review writer, Rameseh Ponnuru, and strong conservative case for Mitt Romney to be the Republican presidential nominee.
Before I continue, this is not any endorsement of Mr. Romney. I think if Republicans do nominate him, he will be an excellent antidote to the poison that is the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the left in general.
Mr. Ponnuru makes a very good point. That while Mr. Romney was governor of Massachusetts, while probably too conservative for many, he was to the left of the national Republican party. And he has moved right since then. But here is the more important point made by Mr. Ponnuru:
It’s true that Romney took a sharp right turn when he moved from state to national politics. But it’s also true that in 2008 he was the candidate behind whom Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, among other conservative notables, said that the conservative movement should rally in order to stop John McCain from getting the nomination. He has not moved left since that time. His positions on policy questions are almost all the same as they were then. On a few issues he has moved right: He now favors a market-oriented reform to Medicare, for example.
If Romney was to McCain’s right then, he is still. He’s to George W. Bush’s right, too. Bush never came out for the Medicare reform Romney has endorsed. Bush never said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, either. Romney has. Romney’s long list of policy advisers includes people who are, within their fields, roughly in sync with the politics of the Bush administration or to its right; almost nobody is significantly to its left.
What Mr. Ponnuru points out is that in many ways, George W. Bush was not all that conservative. I will point out the whole No Child Left Behind scam. It was the federal government overreaching in nationalizing primary school education. Not a good thing whatsoever. There are others, as Mr. Ponnuru points out. But on many very important issues to conservatives, Mr. Romney is to the right of Mr. Bush and one Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. That is reassuring to me.
And Mr. Ponnuru makes a good point that the congress a potential President Romney will be dealing with will be a Republican one. A conservative Republican one. One that will send legislation overturning Obamacare. To cut and or reform taxes. To reform entitlements. These are things that a Republican governor in Massachusetts can not do on a good day. Yet at the national level with the Republicans in control of the legislative and executive branch, these things can and would be done.
Lets face it about this whole campaign.
Conservatives want to be able to actually govern as conservatives.
While the Republican party did control congress and the presidency much of 2001-2007, it was not a conservative one. It was one that gave a moderate president like George W. Bush way too much leeway on issues that it should have never let get out of the station. This congress and the next one will be decidedly conservative. It will set the agenda. Not the Republican White House. That will be a serious shift.
But Mr. Ponnuru does offer a rightful caution.
While I and many others believe that anyone can defeat the Dear Leader, President Obama, it is not a given. One should not write him off.
I agree with that assessment.
And Mr. Ponnuru makes the obvious point. That the whole caucus/primary campaign season is to air all this out.
But once it ends, we conservatives unite behind the Republican presidential nominee. Because he, or she, will need all the stops to be pulled out to defeat the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats any and everywhere throughout the United States.
It begins by having this campaign within the Republican party. It will end, God willing, with a new Republican president. And that may just very well be Mitt Romney.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Wanna Know Why Some People Hate Tim Tebow? Because He Was Not Aborted
Denver Bronco starting quarterback Tim Tebow sure knows how to get under quite a lot of people's skin.
I mean, I don't hate the dude other than the fact he is the starting QB on Satan's team itself, the Broncos.
A digression for the pro football fans.
During the 80s, when my beloved Cleveland Browns were a really good team and on the thrust of a Super Bowl appearance not once, but twice, a certain guy stopped that dream. That guy is Mr. Ed himself, John Elway. He broke many a Browns fan's hearts twice preventing us from at least one Super Bowl appearance.
Hence, the Denver Broncos are Satan's team to every Browns fan!
But there is a real hate on for Mr. Tebow.
Well, one reason and what seems to be a starting point is that he is a. . .Christian. One that is not afraid to speak about it. And not afraid to show his thanks to God for his talent of being a professional football quarterback. The term for his showing thanks to God is now called Tebowing.
The above is Tebowing. And to some, it is a grotesque way of him showing his Christian faith. A short prayer after scoring a touchdown.
Funny, I do not remember that being the case when a former Los Angeles Dodger did something quite similar after the Dodgers won the 1988 World Series.
Orel Hershiser won game six of the 1988 World Series and when he pitched the final out, he dropped to one knee, put his finger in the air to thank God for his performance. In fact, it seemed to be celebrated rather than condemned. And while he was on the Dodgers, he was a member of Lake Avenue Church, a large mega church here in Pasadena, California.
But what drives the Tebow haters really crazy is something that they will not openly admit but is the truth.
That his mother did not abort him when she had a chance.
While pregnant with Mr. Tebow, his mother, Pamela, was diagnosed with a pathogenic amoeba. And the drugs used to treat it cause the baby to have a severe placental abruption. In reading about it, the risks of going through with the pregnancy is rather high. But Mrs. Tebow went through with the pregnancy. One can only assume that she made an educated as well as prayerful decision to carry out the pregnancy.
In other words, Mrs. Tebow made a choice. She chose life over aborting Tim Tebow. And neither was shy about pointing that out.
During Super Bowl XLIV, there were two 30 second ads sponsored by Focus On The Family, a conservative Christian group, that told the Tebow story. And it did not explicitly use the A word, it made a strong case that a woman does not have to chose an abortion. Even when the odds are against her having a successful pregnancy.
And since then, the pro-abortionists and the anti-Christians have teamed up to make Mr. Tebow seem like some kind of freak.
Many have mocked the open display of Mr. Tebow thanking God for his talent. Even some fellow NFLers mock his "Tebowing". And leftist radio talker Bill Press is so "disgusted" by Mr. Tebow that he wants his to STFU* about all his "Jesus talk".
Really, does anyone really think that if Mr. Tebow was not so vocal about his stand on abortion that he would be so viciously attacked? Yeah, I hear those crickets chirping.
There are a lot of serious Christian athletes that go on about their business and no one hears or reads about it like it is something odd. But take on the abortuary complex and boy, that is where the knives, or coat hangers, come out.
Mr. Tebow is a big boy and I am certain that he knows being vocal about his faith is a turn off for many. But it is also allowing for people to be more forthcoming about their own faith journey. And that is a good thing.
But for the abortionists and their allies, Tim Tebow is real threat. And he must be mocked and stopped.
And that is the real reason so much hate is heaped on Tim Tebow.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Are All The Republican Presidential Candidates Really RINOS?
You know, I wonder if in reality all the candidates in the race for the Republican presidential nomination are nothing but RINOS-Republicans In Name Only.
I mean, look at the one-time front runner, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Everyday comes new evidence that Mr. Romney has such a RINO past, well, why does he just not challenge the Democrat president, the Dear Leader, President Obama, for the Democrat nomination.
I will not go into all the revelations and or evidence of Mr. Romney's RINOness. Just going to zero in on the latest.
While running against then Sen. Teddy Burp Kennedy, Mr. Romney said that he was a progressive. Keep in mind that Sen. Kennedy was a Democrat. A progressive Democrat.
But reading this over at HotAir, it appears that Mr. Romney is running to the left of Sen. Kennedy. But I tend to agree with Ed Morrissey's analysis. That Mr. Romney is not a conservative ideologue, but someone that likes what works. And that hey, he would never have gotten to even the governor's mansion in 2002 if he ran as a Ronald Reagan conservative.
But I suppose that nowadays, Mr. Reagan would be considered by some to be a RINO.
I mean, the man was a former Democrat. An FDR Democrat no less. And in this sober analysis from Victor Davis Hanson, he did do some not so conservative things. He got the big picture, but had to govern with Democrats controlling the House of Representatives throughout his eight years in office.
So, Texas governor, Rick Perry, is in some good company. For he was a former Democrat as was Mr. Reagan. But he fails the test on illegal immigration and his disastrous supporting mandating Texas teenage girls getting the HPV vaccine.
So, yeah, on those two issues Gov. Perry is RINO personified.
Then there is the current front-runner, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
He is so RINO that Glenn Beck would consider voting for a third-party candidacy of Ron Paul. So would Joe Scarborough. Mr. Gingrich is one of those people that speaks before he thinks. And yeah, Mr. Gingrich has a long list of RINO bonafides. And the latest is the issue of his taking over $1,000,000 in consulting fees from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But I will prefer to point out that as Speaker of the House he was pretty conservative. And he was an early supporter of that RINO Reagan fellow.
Then there is Crazy Uncle Ron Paul. Will, he is a RINO because he was a Libertarian. And on foreign policy, he is beyond an isolationist. And lets face it, Mr. Paul has never turned down federal money allocated to his congressional district. Hypocrite!
Oh, and lets get don to the lower tier candidates.
Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, a RINO lover if there ever was one. Why he once supported. . .hold on. . .wait for it. . .RINO Sen. Arlen Specter. And this is when he was challenged by now Sen. Pat Toomey. That makes Mr. Santorum a RINO personified.
Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, another one of those Democrats that became a Republican. Why she even voted for Jimmah Carter in 1976. Damn RINO!
Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.,what is his RINO sin?
Mr. Huntsman believes in Globaloney Warming, aka "climate change". On that alone, disqualifies him for any serious consideration for the Republican nod. That is his current position. Thus, he is truly a still rock-solid RINO.
There you have it.
Seven "Republican" candidates for president and RINOs, one and all.
The reality is that all have imperfections. Almost all have some kind of governing record. And that in the overall is what conservatives and Republicans need to look at. The reality is that every candidate has governed or voted or organized as conservative as they could given their individual situations. And that means sometimes, they will have blemishes on their records.
The key is to decide on which of these candidates is most conservative now and that they could win in a general election.
That is why we are having this Death March of a campaign. Whoever the nominee emerges from this still has to face one Dear Leader, President Obama. That candidate will have to deflect the RINO head that Team Obama will rear to scare away conservative voters. Who does that the best now will be the nominee and, God willing, the next President of the United States.
But do we really need all these RINOs running now?! Where is the last, great Republican, Calvin Coolidge, when you need him?!
I mean, look at the one-time front runner, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Everyday comes new evidence that Mr. Romney has such a RINO past, well, why does he just not challenge the Democrat president, the Dear Leader, President Obama, for the Democrat nomination.
I will not go into all the revelations and or evidence of Mr. Romney's RINOness. Just going to zero in on the latest.
While running against then Sen. Teddy Burp Kennedy, Mr. Romney said that he was a progressive. Keep in mind that Sen. Kennedy was a Democrat. A progressive Democrat.
But reading this over at HotAir, it appears that Mr. Romney is running to the left of Sen. Kennedy. But I tend to agree with Ed Morrissey's analysis. That Mr. Romney is not a conservative ideologue, but someone that likes what works. And that hey, he would never have gotten to even the governor's mansion in 2002 if he ran as a Ronald Reagan conservative.
But I suppose that nowadays, Mr. Reagan would be considered by some to be a RINO.
I mean, the man was a former Democrat. An FDR Democrat no less. And in this sober analysis from Victor Davis Hanson, he did do some not so conservative things. He got the big picture, but had to govern with Democrats controlling the House of Representatives throughout his eight years in office.
So, Texas governor, Rick Perry, is in some good company. For he was a former Democrat as was Mr. Reagan. But he fails the test on illegal immigration and his disastrous supporting mandating Texas teenage girls getting the HPV vaccine.
So, yeah, on those two issues Gov. Perry is RINO personified.
Then there is the current front-runner, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
He is so RINO that Glenn Beck would consider voting for a third-party candidacy of Ron Paul. So would Joe Scarborough. Mr. Gingrich is one of those people that speaks before he thinks. And yeah, Mr. Gingrich has a long list of RINO bonafides. And the latest is the issue of his taking over $1,000,000 in consulting fees from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But I will prefer to point out that as Speaker of the House he was pretty conservative. And he was an early supporter of that RINO Reagan fellow.
Then there is Crazy Uncle Ron Paul. Will, he is a RINO because he was a Libertarian. And on foreign policy, he is beyond an isolationist. And lets face it, Mr. Paul has never turned down federal money allocated to his congressional district. Hypocrite!
Oh, and lets get don to the lower tier candidates.
Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, a RINO lover if there ever was one. Why he once supported. . .hold on. . .wait for it. . .RINO Sen. Arlen Specter. And this is when he was challenged by now Sen. Pat Toomey. That makes Mr. Santorum a RINO personified.
Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, another one of those Democrats that became a Republican. Why she even voted for Jimmah Carter in 1976. Damn RINO!
Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.,what is his RINO sin?
Mr. Huntsman believes in Globaloney Warming, aka "climate change". On that alone, disqualifies him for any serious consideration for the Republican nod. That is his current position. Thus, he is truly a still rock-solid RINO.
There you have it.
Seven "Republican" candidates for president and RINOs, one and all.
The reality is that all have imperfections. Almost all have some kind of governing record. And that in the overall is what conservatives and Republicans need to look at. The reality is that every candidate has governed or voted or organized as conservative as they could given their individual situations. And that means sometimes, they will have blemishes on their records.
The key is to decide on which of these candidates is most conservative now and that they could win in a general election.
That is why we are having this Death March of a campaign. Whoever the nominee emerges from this still has to face one Dear Leader, President Obama. That candidate will have to deflect the RINO head that Team Obama will rear to scare away conservative voters. Who does that the best now will be the nominee and, God willing, the next President of the United States.
But do we really need all these RINOs running now?! Where is the last, great Republican, Calvin Coolidge, when you need him?!
Monday, December 12, 2011
And Now, Its Pile On Newt
OK, one thing that I have chosen not to do is endorse a Republican candidate for president this time around.
Because of that, I have been more clear-headed and not doing my own spin.
I saw the rise of Newt Gingrich. Oh yes, it is real.
And now that he has risen, it is time to turn on Mr. Gingrich.
Of course the leftywhore media has that built in. And there are conservatives that support, tacitly or openly, someone else other than the former Speaker of the House.
So, lets take it from those on the right not all that pleased by this slam of Mr. Gingrich against the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney via Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard:
Gingrich was responding to a statement by Romney earlier Monday on Fox News. Romney was asked if Gingrich should return the $1.6 million he earned for advising Freddie Mac. “Boy, I sure do,” Romney said. “He [Gingrich] was on a debate saying that politicians who took money from Freddie and Fannie should go to jail, which is outrageous in itself.”
In response, Gingrich said: “I would say if Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employee’s over the years at Bain, I would be glad to listen to him.”
Well, from Mr. Barnes and my perspective, it seems like a bromide from, oh some "Occupiers".
But what it really is a populist sop. It is what a candidate does in a general election campaign. I do not think that Mr. Gingrich is going to Occupy Wall Street any time soon.
But it was a loose-lipped comment that is not so much a lefty bromide as one highlighting the fact that Mr. Romney is from wealth and he is not. In a weird way, it is kind of Mr. Gingrich running as the outsider a la Ronald Reagan in 1976.
And Mr. Romney is seen as the Gerald Ford, establishment guy. That is what I take away from the comment.
So, I do not think that this is something to hyperventilate about.
At the end of the day, if the nominee is Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich, I will fly to the nearest polling booth to vote for either one.
But I will never vote for Crazy Uncle Ron Paul, no matter what.
Yet it appears that on this, for sure, Glenn Beck has jumped the shark and said that he would vote for a third-party Ron Paul bid over Newt Gingrich in the general election.
Why? I get that he is a purist, but there is something called reality. The current field is what we have. Unless someone like a Sarah Palin can come in, we have to make a decision based on the announced candidates.
So, if Mr. Gingrich should be the Republican presidential nominee, Mr. Beck really believes that if Mr. Paul ran third party, it is better for the country? Or is it that it is better for Mr. Beck? I do not know. But again, Mr. Gingrich is much more preferable, many warts and all, to the current occupier of the White House.
That is what the primary is about. It is why this time, I want to take a look at all the GOP candidates. See what the voters really think. And right now, many are looking at Newt Gingrich. Not as the anti-Romney. But as the most conservative candidate that can win the general election.
So, look for more piling on from all against the new GOP front runner, Newt Gingrich.
Because of that, I have been more clear-headed and not doing my own spin.
I saw the rise of Newt Gingrich. Oh yes, it is real.
And now that he has risen, it is time to turn on Mr. Gingrich.
Of course the leftywhore media has that built in. And there are conservatives that support, tacitly or openly, someone else other than the former Speaker of the House.
So, lets take it from those on the right not all that pleased by this slam of Mr. Gingrich against the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney via Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard:
Gingrich was responding to a statement by Romney earlier Monday on Fox News. Romney was asked if Gingrich should return the $1.6 million he earned for advising Freddie Mac. “Boy, I sure do,” Romney said. “He [Gingrich] was on a debate saying that politicians who took money from Freddie and Fannie should go to jail, which is outrageous in itself.”
In response, Gingrich said: “I would say if Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employee’s over the years at Bain, I would be glad to listen to him.”
Well, from Mr. Barnes and my perspective, it seems like a bromide from, oh some "Occupiers".
But what it really is a populist sop. It is what a candidate does in a general election campaign. I do not think that Mr. Gingrich is going to Occupy Wall Street any time soon.
But it was a loose-lipped comment that is not so much a lefty bromide as one highlighting the fact that Mr. Romney is from wealth and he is not. In a weird way, it is kind of Mr. Gingrich running as the outsider a la Ronald Reagan in 1976.
And Mr. Romney is seen as the Gerald Ford, establishment guy. That is what I take away from the comment.
So, I do not think that this is something to hyperventilate about.
At the end of the day, if the nominee is Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich, I will fly to the nearest polling booth to vote for either one.
But I will never vote for Crazy Uncle Ron Paul, no matter what.
Yet it appears that on this, for sure, Glenn Beck has jumped the shark and said that he would vote for a third-party Ron Paul bid over Newt Gingrich in the general election.
Why? I get that he is a purist, but there is something called reality. The current field is what we have. Unless someone like a Sarah Palin can come in, we have to make a decision based on the announced candidates.
So, if Mr. Gingrich should be the Republican presidential nominee, Mr. Beck really believes that if Mr. Paul ran third party, it is better for the country? Or is it that it is better for Mr. Beck? I do not know. But again, Mr. Gingrich is much more preferable, many warts and all, to the current occupier of the White House.
That is what the primary is about. It is why this time, I want to take a look at all the GOP candidates. See what the voters really think. And right now, many are looking at Newt Gingrich. Not as the anti-Romney. But as the most conservative candidate that can win the general election.
So, look for more piling on from all against the new GOP front runner, Newt Gingrich.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Occupy Vermin Target. . .Target?!
All I can say is that it is about time the "Occupy" vermin take out their rat fangs against Target department stores!
Now why would I, a free-marketeer, capitalist pig, care about this?
One word.
WalMart.
For eons, the left has assaulted the hiring and work practices of the world's largest department store. Everywhere that WalMart wants to open a store and or one of their Supercenters, there is the odd assortment of the left. Mostly labor union lefties. They go to all the hearings, clearly make stuff up essentially about how eeeeevvvvviiilllll WalMart is and eventually, the WalMart gets built.
But so often, I ask Mrs. RVFTLC why a store like Target does not get the same treatment as WalMart. I mean, they hire part-time workers. They have no union representation.
But that has changed and I do have to give some credit to the "Occupy" vermin. They are consistant.
In this report courtesy of The Blaze, anywhere from 100 to 350 vermin decided to descend of a Pittsburgh area Target store. To protest it's treatment of said Target workers.
The comments of one Calvin Skinner of Homewood, Pennsylvania were eye-opening:
"We want full-time jobs with benefits in our community when you use our taxes to build our store."
OK, I am going to go out on a limb here and clean up Mr. Skinner's thought a little bit.
I do not think that Mr. Skinner meant to say that taxpayer's money was used to build the Target store the mob of vermin infested. But that Target did probably get a tax break to build in that particular area of Pittsburgh. And I do not think that Mr. Skinner really understands that business is not obligated to do any of what he believes that they should do. You know, hire people full time. Give a full benefit package. That is the decision of the business how they staff it.
But it is how the left "thinks". That somehow, a business exists to give people, anyone no matter their skills and or qualifications, a job. And then a full-time one at that. Even if it does not call for that to be the case. And that they must provide a full benefits package. Even if that means the cost of that will be passed onto the very people that benefit now with the prices being affordable.
A business exists to provide a good and or service at the most affordable price to maximize profit. And if it is a public company, one to maximize profits for the benefit of shareholders.
Everything else is pretty negotiable.
But see, in Leftytopia, profit is evil. Hell, in their world it would be a barter system economy. Pretty much how the Third-World works. Make that does not work.
But the "Occupy" vermin have also done something few WalMart haters have done.
Taken on a Democrat department store chain.
What?! Target is owned by the Democrats?!
Well, it is not necessarily a Democrat business per se. But one of the heirs to the Dayton company, the owners of Target is one Minnesota governor, Mark Dayton. One can not help but think that some of the reason Target has been, until now, left alone is because the Dayton family is more politically connected to the Democrat party than not.
But score one for the "Occupy" vermin and showing the hypocrisy of many who seem to have a bugaboo against WalMart and Target, not so much.
The reality is that the retail business is a difficult one at best. The profit margin is low to say the least. And that is why stores like Target and WalMart exist. To bring affordability to the broadest market possible.
As much as I despise the "Occupy" movement, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And by targeting a Target, they expose what has been a strange dichotomy about the opposition to WalMart and the silence if not support of Target.
Strange times we are living in, doncha think?
Now why would I, a free-marketeer, capitalist pig, care about this?
One word.
WalMart.
For eons, the left has assaulted the hiring and work practices of the world's largest department store. Everywhere that WalMart wants to open a store and or one of their Supercenters, there is the odd assortment of the left. Mostly labor union lefties. They go to all the hearings, clearly make stuff up essentially about how eeeeevvvvviiilllll WalMart is and eventually, the WalMart gets built.
But so often, I ask Mrs. RVFTLC why a store like Target does not get the same treatment as WalMart. I mean, they hire part-time workers. They have no union representation.
But that has changed and I do have to give some credit to the "Occupy" vermin. They are consistant.
In this report courtesy of The Blaze, anywhere from 100 to 350 vermin decided to descend of a Pittsburgh area Target store. To protest it's treatment of said Target workers.
The comments of one Calvin Skinner of Homewood, Pennsylvania were eye-opening:
"We want full-time jobs with benefits in our community when you use our taxes to build our store."
OK, I am going to go out on a limb here and clean up Mr. Skinner's thought a little bit.
I do not think that Mr. Skinner meant to say that taxpayer's money was used to build the Target store the mob of vermin infested. But that Target did probably get a tax break to build in that particular area of Pittsburgh. And I do not think that Mr. Skinner really understands that business is not obligated to do any of what he believes that they should do. You know, hire people full time. Give a full benefit package. That is the decision of the business how they staff it.
But it is how the left "thinks". That somehow, a business exists to give people, anyone no matter their skills and or qualifications, a job. And then a full-time one at that. Even if it does not call for that to be the case. And that they must provide a full benefits package. Even if that means the cost of that will be passed onto the very people that benefit now with the prices being affordable.
A business exists to provide a good and or service at the most affordable price to maximize profit. And if it is a public company, one to maximize profits for the benefit of shareholders.
Everything else is pretty negotiable.
But see, in Leftytopia, profit is evil. Hell, in their world it would be a barter system economy. Pretty much how the Third-World works. Make that does not work.
But the "Occupy" vermin have also done something few WalMart haters have done.
Taken on a Democrat department store chain.
What?! Target is owned by the Democrats?!
Well, it is not necessarily a Democrat business per se. But one of the heirs to the Dayton company, the owners of Target is one Minnesota governor, Mark Dayton. One can not help but think that some of the reason Target has been, until now, left alone is because the Dayton family is more politically connected to the Democrat party than not.
But score one for the "Occupy" vermin and showing the hypocrisy of many who seem to have a bugaboo against WalMart and Target, not so much.
The reality is that the retail business is a difficult one at best. The profit margin is low to say the least. And that is why stores like Target and WalMart exist. To bring affordability to the broadest market possible.
As much as I despise the "Occupy" movement, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And by targeting a Target, they expose what has been a strange dichotomy about the opposition to WalMart and the silence if not support of Target.
Strange times we are living in, doncha think?
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Can Rick Santorum Mess Everyone's Plans In Iowa?
While all the media, conservative and leftywhore, are zeroing in on making the GOP presidential nomination a two-man race, can I throw a monkey wrench in that?
All media seems to be narrowing down the Republican field to the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, and the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
The two states that start off the actual primary caucus season are Iowa and New Hampshire.
Iowans get to caucus first on January 3, 2012 closely followed by New Hampshire on January 10, 2012.
So, Mr. Gingrich is leading Mr. Romney in both states.
But, there is a vast difference between the two states.
In Iowa, the state Republicans are conservative. And much more religious. The Evangelical Christian community especially in Western Iowa holds a lot of clout.
Only one candidate running has actually visited all of Iowa's 99 counties.
That candidate is the former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum.
Because the caucus system basically is free-for-all and based on a majority of groups, Mr. Santorum is banking on taking the traditional approach and doing the retail politics of meet and greet.
Not that the two others, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney are not. But not the way that Mr. Santorum has.
Sure, Mr. Santorum has been essentially shut out of the debates sponsored by and moderated by the leftywhore media. But when he does get the 30 second attempt at an answer, he is very sharp and focused.
One other thing that the media seems to not grasp is that Mr. Santorum's very strong stands on social issues can only help him with this group of voters. Just ask the Rev. Mike Huckabee. It sure helped him in 2008. It all but ended the Mitt Romney train.
Almost all Iowa polling shows Mr. Santorum in mid single-digits. But again, the caucus way is different from the primary way of voting. It is all about organization. It is also all about what candidate will appeal to that group of voters that could put some one like a Mr. Santorum on a momentum not seen by most.
A third place or above finish in Iowa could be a huge boost to Mr. Santorum's candidacy. First place could in fact throw the whole GOP race into beyond uncharted territory.
Now I know one of the knocks on Mr. Santorum is that he lost his bid for reelection to the senate in 2006. By 20 points. But almost every candidate for office loses an election. And what those ripping him for losing that race seem to forget is that is the year the Democrats regained control of the House of Representative. And the senate. And that Mr. Santorum never backed down from his positions to try to win reelection.
But when you listen to him talk, he has the passion for the issues that I sometimes think Mr. Romney lacks. A knowledge that does not come off that he thinks he is the smartest guy or gal in the room. A la Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Santorum has also won races that he was not supposed to win in the home state of Pennsylvania. Can he do that in Iowa?
Again, in Iowa it is all about organization. And it does appear that Mr. Santorum does have that. And that may not be showing up in polls. Did not for the Rev. Mike until just days before the caucus took place.
I think that one should watch for the possibility that one Rick Santorum may just mess every one's plans up in Iowa come January 3.
All media seems to be narrowing down the Republican field to the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, and the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
The two states that start off the actual primary caucus season are Iowa and New Hampshire.
Iowans get to caucus first on January 3, 2012 closely followed by New Hampshire on January 10, 2012.
So, Mr. Gingrich is leading Mr. Romney in both states.
But, there is a vast difference between the two states.
In Iowa, the state Republicans are conservative. And much more religious. The Evangelical Christian community especially in Western Iowa holds a lot of clout.
Only one candidate running has actually visited all of Iowa's 99 counties.
That candidate is the former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum.
Because the caucus system basically is free-for-all and based on a majority of groups, Mr. Santorum is banking on taking the traditional approach and doing the retail politics of meet and greet.
Not that the two others, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney are not. But not the way that Mr. Santorum has.
Sure, Mr. Santorum has been essentially shut out of the debates sponsored by and moderated by the leftywhore media. But when he does get the 30 second attempt at an answer, he is very sharp and focused.
One other thing that the media seems to not grasp is that Mr. Santorum's very strong stands on social issues can only help him with this group of voters. Just ask the Rev. Mike Huckabee. It sure helped him in 2008. It all but ended the Mitt Romney train.
Almost all Iowa polling shows Mr. Santorum in mid single-digits. But again, the caucus way is different from the primary way of voting. It is all about organization. It is also all about what candidate will appeal to that group of voters that could put some one like a Mr. Santorum on a momentum not seen by most.
A third place or above finish in Iowa could be a huge boost to Mr. Santorum's candidacy. First place could in fact throw the whole GOP race into beyond uncharted territory.
Now I know one of the knocks on Mr. Santorum is that he lost his bid for reelection to the senate in 2006. By 20 points. But almost every candidate for office loses an election. And what those ripping him for losing that race seem to forget is that is the year the Democrats regained control of the House of Representative. And the senate. And that Mr. Santorum never backed down from his positions to try to win reelection.
But when you listen to him talk, he has the passion for the issues that I sometimes think Mr. Romney lacks. A knowledge that does not come off that he thinks he is the smartest guy or gal in the room. A la Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Santorum has also won races that he was not supposed to win in the home state of Pennsylvania. Can he do that in Iowa?
Again, in Iowa it is all about organization. And it does appear that Mr. Santorum does have that. And that may not be showing up in polls. Did not for the Rev. Mike until just days before the caucus took place.
I think that one should watch for the possibility that one Rick Santorum may just mess every one's plans up in Iowa come January 3.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Mom Of 15 Kids Wants To Hold Others Responsible For Her Pathetic Station In Life
I heard this epic rant on Glenn Beck's radio program this past Friday and really had to spend the weekend pondering how ridiculous this woman really is.
The immediate background on this story is that one Angel Adams, a mother of 15 children. Yes, 15 frickin' children, is upset that her man, oh my bad, her fiance, has been arrested.
But it is what she says about it that really has me wondering what has happened to our society:
“Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay,”
Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
This Adams gal, yeah someone needs to pay alright.
However, it appears no matter what that the good taxpayers of the state of Florida will be doing just that one way or the other.
But imagine that this gal had 15 children, all out of wedlock. Who do you think is paying for this? Do you think that Miss. Adams is. . .working?!
Not a chance.
What she has done is game the system. Counting on the kindness of people, people who do not want to see children suffer. To that end, a group called Hillsbourogh Kids was helping Miss Adams and the children out. Miss Adams was being helped living in a two-bedroom apartment with 12 of the 15 children. A wonderful home environment if there ever was one.
Eventually, Miss Adams was evicted from the manor she called home and ended up in even a better lap of luxury. A one bedroom motel. Very nice.
Now three of the 15 kids are old enough to take care of themselves. They are lucky. They are out from under of the burden that is Angel Adams. But the other 12 are wards of the state. They are in foster care. And the state is moving to take full custody of the two youngest children.
It is worth it to watch the video compilation over the the Glenn Beck link.
And yeah, Mr. Beck was harsh by saying, “Close the legs, lady. Close the legs." But he is right. The gal needed to be forced to do something.
She is the poster child of the entitlement, enabling culture that is culminating with the presidency of the Dear Leader, President Obama. And his sycophant "Occupiers". Those that believe that the government, any government, has to do something about anything. Even if they really can not do anything.
Lets unpack the somebody needs to be held accountable comment of Miss Adams.
Yeah lady, YOU need to be held accountable. You need to actually be in jail and stay there as long as Lady Justice allows. You are a child abuser. You kept producing children with at least three different fathers. Oh, you were going to marry one of them. Until that pillar of the community was arrested.
And before any one shouts to the rooftops that I am being a raaaaacist, let me be clear. If Miss Adams were White, I would refer to her in exactly the same way. But throw in the White Trash that she would be rightfully called for living this kind of life. And I don't care if she were Angela Avila. Angel Fill In The Asian Surname. Race has nothing to do with this. It is class. Or lack thereof.
I have a hard time writing this because in general I believe that the government needs to stay out of people's personal matters. But once it became clear that Miss Adams was popping kids out like one takes a dump, at some point the state had an obligation to forcibly sterilize her. Again, she has never shown any sign of visible support. There is a reason that Child Protective Services was involved in the first place. But I am certain that the American Civil Liberties Union would have fought such a thing. Not realizing that as I have noted, one way or the other, the taxpayers of the state of Florida were being put on the hook for this parasite.
This is extreme, but an important look at the culture of entitlement. Of what government dependency hath wrought. Yet when one Ronald Reagan pointed out such things many times, he was called a raaaaacist. Yet he was right.
Hey, Angel baby, I want to let you know this.
YOU are responsible for your station in life. It is time you got of the dependency gravy train, clean up your act and maybe, maybe you will have a real chance with some of your children. Until then, leave your kids alone. We will take care of them.
The immediate background on this story is that one Angel Adams, a mother of 15 children. Yes, 15 frickin' children, is upset that her man, oh my bad, her fiance, has been arrested.
But it is what she says about it that really has me wondering what has happened to our society:
“Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay,”
Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
This Adams gal, yeah someone needs to pay alright.
However, it appears no matter what that the good taxpayers of the state of Florida will be doing just that one way or the other.
But imagine that this gal had 15 children, all out of wedlock. Who do you think is paying for this? Do you think that Miss. Adams is. . .working?!
Not a chance.
What she has done is game the system. Counting on the kindness of people, people who do not want to see children suffer. To that end, a group called Hillsbourogh Kids was helping Miss Adams and the children out. Miss Adams was being helped living in a two-bedroom apartment with 12 of the 15 children. A wonderful home environment if there ever was one.
Eventually, Miss Adams was evicted from the manor she called home and ended up in even a better lap of luxury. A one bedroom motel. Very nice.
Now three of the 15 kids are old enough to take care of themselves. They are lucky. They are out from under of the burden that is Angel Adams. But the other 12 are wards of the state. They are in foster care. And the state is moving to take full custody of the two youngest children.
It is worth it to watch the video compilation over the the Glenn Beck link.
And yeah, Mr. Beck was harsh by saying, “Close the legs, lady. Close the legs." But he is right. The gal needed to be forced to do something.
She is the poster child of the entitlement, enabling culture that is culminating with the presidency of the Dear Leader, President Obama. And his sycophant "Occupiers". Those that believe that the government, any government, has to do something about anything. Even if they really can not do anything.
Lets unpack the somebody needs to be held accountable comment of Miss Adams.
Yeah lady, YOU need to be held accountable. You need to actually be in jail and stay there as long as Lady Justice allows. You are a child abuser. You kept producing children with at least three different fathers. Oh, you were going to marry one of them. Until that pillar of the community was arrested.
And before any one shouts to the rooftops that I am being a raaaaacist, let me be clear. If Miss Adams were White, I would refer to her in exactly the same way. But throw in the White Trash that she would be rightfully called for living this kind of life. And I don't care if she were Angela Avila. Angel Fill In The Asian Surname. Race has nothing to do with this. It is class. Or lack thereof.
I have a hard time writing this because in general I believe that the government needs to stay out of people's personal matters. But once it became clear that Miss Adams was popping kids out like one takes a dump, at some point the state had an obligation to forcibly sterilize her. Again, she has never shown any sign of visible support. There is a reason that Child Protective Services was involved in the first place. But I am certain that the American Civil Liberties Union would have fought such a thing. Not realizing that as I have noted, one way or the other, the taxpayers of the state of Florida were being put on the hook for this parasite.
This is extreme, but an important look at the culture of entitlement. Of what government dependency hath wrought. Yet when one Ronald Reagan pointed out such things many times, he was called a raaaaacist. Yet he was right.
Hey, Angel baby, I want to let you know this.
YOU are responsible for your station in life. It is time you got of the dependency gravy train, clean up your act and maybe, maybe you will have a real chance with some of your children. Until then, leave your kids alone. We will take care of them.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Can The Political Class Leave My Christmas Alone?!
I should be ecstatic that the Iowa Republican caucuses are just around the corner on January 3, 2012. And the New Hampshire primary on January 10, 2012.
But I am not.
Why you may ask?
Because all this political talk is ruining the Christmas season.
I mean, for many people who take their politics way too seriously, again not that I do not, this is not a great time of year to start getting into discussions about who would make a better Republican presidential candidate. Or even thinking about caucusing or voting literally after the New Year.
But here we are.
Why are we here?
Because a lot of people do not like the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire get to go first in the process. And they are for various reasons to be addressed later in this post.
First, the diversity police hate these states.
According to the 2010 census, Iowa has a population of 3,046,355. Ninety-one percent are White. Five percent are Hispanic. Three percent are Black. The rest of the race stats are here. As for New Hampshire, with a population of 1,316,470, it is even worse. Ninety-three percent are White. Three percent are Hispanic and a little over one percent are Black. Again, the rest of those stats are here.
So, who wants to steal the glory of these two states?
Well, there is always South Carolina. The diversity police should like this state.
A little over 4,625,000 people and only 67% White. Twenty-seven percent Black and a growing five percent Hispanic.
Then there is Florida.
Now there is diversity.
Out of a popluation of a little over 18,801,000, the number of Whites is 75%. Hispanics are at 23% and Blacks make up 16%. Now it is worth looking at these numbers. Yeah, they do not add up but it is because of the way one can be asked what race one is.
For me, I do not care about the whole diversity thing.
What it really comes down to is power.
The larger states of Florida and South Carolina think that they should be determining who the nominee of each political party should be. They are fast-growing states. They have a lot of competing forces. Yada, yada, yada.
Because these states, and throw in Nevada too, want to be the determiners, they keep pushing Iowa and New Hampshire to insure that they will be the firs caucus and primary in the United States.
In my lifetime, the Iowa caucuses have been held in late January or early February, as noted here.
As far as the New Hampshire primary, they have gone from early to mid-March to the bleak winter of early February, again as noted here.
And really, would there have been a different result if some other state ot states got to go first? After all, Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses. And placed a very close second in New Hampshire. Would have Hilary Clinton won the Democrat nomination if Florida got to go first? And there is the Republican split decision in 2008. The Rev. Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa Caucus and Sen. John "F--- You" McCain winning the New Hampshire primary. Does anyone really think that the former New York City mayor, Rudy Guiliani, would have won Florida if it went first?
I think it is time to let these states have their place in the sun every four years. Let them be the first in the nation to kick off the presidential primary season.
But not at Christmas time.
We all need a break from the politics of the day. We need to be able to get together with family and friends. Some we do not agree a wit on politics. We need to spend this time of the year reflecting on how we can do, as individuals, making life better and easier for someone else. We need to reflect on the year coming to an end and what we will do in the upcoming year. We need to be able to do this politics-free.
But the political class is just saying no. It is saying, you must endure our circus show during the Christmas season. You will endure some candidate coming out wishing you a Merry Christmas. You will enjoy that bit of insincerity.
No, I will not. Does not mean I will not write about it. But I will not enjoy the political class trying to harsh my mellow on this Christmas season, once again.
But I am not.
Why you may ask?
Because all this political talk is ruining the Christmas season.
I mean, for many people who take their politics way too seriously, again not that I do not, this is not a great time of year to start getting into discussions about who would make a better Republican presidential candidate. Or even thinking about caucusing or voting literally after the New Year.
But here we are.
Why are we here?
Because a lot of people do not like the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire get to go first in the process. And they are for various reasons to be addressed later in this post.
First, the diversity police hate these states.
According to the 2010 census, Iowa has a population of 3,046,355. Ninety-one percent are White. Five percent are Hispanic. Three percent are Black. The rest of the race stats are here. As for New Hampshire, with a population of 1,316,470, it is even worse. Ninety-three percent are White. Three percent are Hispanic and a little over one percent are Black. Again, the rest of those stats are here.
So, who wants to steal the glory of these two states?
Well, there is always South Carolina. The diversity police should like this state.
A little over 4,625,000 people and only 67% White. Twenty-seven percent Black and a growing five percent Hispanic.
Then there is Florida.
Now there is diversity.
Out of a popluation of a little over 18,801,000, the number of Whites is 75%. Hispanics are at 23% and Blacks make up 16%. Now it is worth looking at these numbers. Yeah, they do not add up but it is because of the way one can be asked what race one is.
For me, I do not care about the whole diversity thing.
What it really comes down to is power.
The larger states of Florida and South Carolina think that they should be determining who the nominee of each political party should be. They are fast-growing states. They have a lot of competing forces. Yada, yada, yada.
Because these states, and throw in Nevada too, want to be the determiners, they keep pushing Iowa and New Hampshire to insure that they will be the firs caucus and primary in the United States.
In my lifetime, the Iowa caucuses have been held in late January or early February, as noted here.
As far as the New Hampshire primary, they have gone from early to mid-March to the bleak winter of early February, again as noted here.
And really, would there have been a different result if some other state ot states got to go first? After all, Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses. And placed a very close second in New Hampshire. Would have Hilary Clinton won the Democrat nomination if Florida got to go first? And there is the Republican split decision in 2008. The Rev. Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa Caucus and Sen. John "F--- You" McCain winning the New Hampshire primary. Does anyone really think that the former New York City mayor, Rudy Guiliani, would have won Florida if it went first?
I think it is time to let these states have their place in the sun every four years. Let them be the first in the nation to kick off the presidential primary season.
But not at Christmas time.
We all need a break from the politics of the day. We need to be able to get together with family and friends. Some we do not agree a wit on politics. We need to spend this time of the year reflecting on how we can do, as individuals, making life better and easier for someone else. We need to reflect on the year coming to an end and what we will do in the upcoming year. We need to be able to do this politics-free.
But the political class is just saying no. It is saying, you must endure our circus show during the Christmas season. You will endure some candidate coming out wishing you a Merry Christmas. You will enjoy that bit of insincerity.
No, I will not. Does not mean I will not write about it. But I will not enjoy the political class trying to harsh my mellow on this Christmas season, once again.
So, Who Gains From Cain's Fall?
I am not surprised that Herman Cain has "suspended", re: ended, his presidential campaign.
Even though I do question a lot of these allegations against him. Of sexual harassment. Of carrying on a 13 year plus affair. At some point, if this is all that is being talked and written about, there is no other choice than to do what Mr. Cain did.
Now, the political question is who does this help in the GOP Death March to the presidential nomination?
I think that there are three options for the average Cain supporter.
The first one is to take a look at the Texas governor, Rick Perry.
Now, Mr. Perry is not anywhere on my radar screen. I still want to know why he is running for president. But a lot of people like his style, if you will. But he has proposed some serious ideas. One is the, for lack of better term, alternative flat-tax. It is a way that tax payers can choose either to pay their federal income taxes under the current regime or do it on a post card and a flat rate with little if any deductions. Again, it is a plan, much like the maligned 9-9-9 tax plan of Mr. Cain.
But it is easy to understand.
Again, I think Mr. Cain's supporters that go with Gov. Perry are looking at the closest to their candidate.
A second option is to look at Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Gingrich is about as close as these voters will look at any candidate seen as part of the "establishment" of the GOP.
Mr. Gingrich has been a statesmen of candidates. He has not had unkind words for the opponents that he is facing. That could be because he wants to get the GOP voters that were for someone else totally on board his candidacy. A good strategy. Of course he has also had a rather undisciplined approach to the campaign. Something Mr. Cain also had. So, he is another avenue to go for the Cainiacs.
The third option for these voters is the underdog former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.
A lot of conservative Republicans like Mr. Santorum for his uncompromising stands, especially on social issues. Now, this may not be the bread-and-butter for many Caniacs, but it is the fact that Mr. Santorum will be a fighter. Much as they saw in Mr. Cain.
But I do not see these voters going to the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney, for better or worse, is seen as the very "establishment" the Caniac despises. I do not agree with that assessment. I see Mr. Romney preferable to former Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr. Congressman Crazy Uncle Ron Paul. The Dear Leader himself, President Obama.
I am very sorry to see the Cain Train derail. I think the man has some great ideas. But it is the problem for someone who has never ran for office before. If any of the allegations are proven to be true, and he went on deny, deny, deny, that ruins a candidate more than anything. Except if it is not true but people come out of the woodwork and it is the endless distraction that it proved to be.
Mr. Cain, do not leave the political arena. The United States needs more people like you. Not unlike the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, you can be a voice for the people. You do not need to be an elected official for that.
Even though I do question a lot of these allegations against him. Of sexual harassment. Of carrying on a 13 year plus affair. At some point, if this is all that is being talked and written about, there is no other choice than to do what Mr. Cain did.
Now, the political question is who does this help in the GOP Death March to the presidential nomination?
I think that there are three options for the average Cain supporter.
The first one is to take a look at the Texas governor, Rick Perry.
Now, Mr. Perry is not anywhere on my radar screen. I still want to know why he is running for president. But a lot of people like his style, if you will. But he has proposed some serious ideas. One is the, for lack of better term, alternative flat-tax. It is a way that tax payers can choose either to pay their federal income taxes under the current regime or do it on a post card and a flat rate with little if any deductions. Again, it is a plan, much like the maligned 9-9-9 tax plan of Mr. Cain.
But it is easy to understand.
Again, I think Mr. Cain's supporters that go with Gov. Perry are looking at the closest to their candidate.
A second option is to look at Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Gingrich is about as close as these voters will look at any candidate seen as part of the "establishment" of the GOP.
Mr. Gingrich has been a statesmen of candidates. He has not had unkind words for the opponents that he is facing. That could be because he wants to get the GOP voters that were for someone else totally on board his candidacy. A good strategy. Of course he has also had a rather undisciplined approach to the campaign. Something Mr. Cain also had. So, he is another avenue to go for the Cainiacs.
The third option for these voters is the underdog former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.
A lot of conservative Republicans like Mr. Santorum for his uncompromising stands, especially on social issues. Now, this may not be the bread-and-butter for many Caniacs, but it is the fact that Mr. Santorum will be a fighter. Much as they saw in Mr. Cain.
But I do not see these voters going to the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney, for better or worse, is seen as the very "establishment" the Caniac despises. I do not agree with that assessment. I see Mr. Romney preferable to former Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr. Congressman Crazy Uncle Ron Paul. The Dear Leader himself, President Obama.
I am very sorry to see the Cain Train derail. I think the man has some great ideas. But it is the problem for someone who has never ran for office before. If any of the allegations are proven to be true, and he went on deny, deny, deny, that ruins a candidate more than anything. Except if it is not true but people come out of the woodwork and it is the endless distraction that it proved to be.
Mr. Cain, do not leave the political arena. The United States needs more people like you. Not unlike the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, you can be a voice for the people. You do not need to be an elected official for that.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Finally The Dear Leader Is WORSE Than President Jimmah Carter
WOW! Only three plus years into the era of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and he has actually accomplished something amazing.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, is the worst president at this stage of his presidency in my 47 years on God's Green Earth.
Well, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is worst in standing with the American people according to the latest polling from Gallup.
This is a daily tracking poll from Gallup. And it is 1,500 adults. Not registered voters. Not registered likely voters. Just 1,500 American adults.
The really bad thing about this is that if is was narrowed down, the numbers for the Dear Leader, President Obama, would more than likely be worse.
The fact is that the Dear Leader, President Obama, has been consistently underwater with the American people according to Gallup. If you go the link and scan over the chart, the last time the Dear Leader, President Obama, has been anywhere near 50% was the period over May 24-26. Since then, it has been all downhill.
So, if one wants to drink Obamaade and believe that this is all a mirage and he will top the results of 2008, take a peek at this from U. S. News and World Report.
The previous worst president of my life time, President Jimmah Carter, was at 51% at this point before the total tsunami of one Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1980.
In the link, Paul Bedard points out the trifecta of losers of the modern era were Presidents Carter, Gerald R. Ford and Harry S Truman. And only Mr. Truman pulled out a win in 1948. And yeah, Team Obama thinks that it is going to do the same thing this time around.
But I submit that it is Not. Going. To. Happen.
The economy is not going to drastically improve enough for the Dear Leader, President Obama, to take any credit. In fact, the economy is not exactly humming along at record growth.
Team Obama is pointing to stellar Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales. Yet according to this article, about half of Americans worry that they will not be able to afford Christmas this year. It could be that the two big shopping days of the year maybe all she wrote. Not a way to go into a presidential campaign, eh?
Something to consider is that the only president that had a positive rating at this stage and lost his reelection bid was George H. W. Bush.
But even more daunting is the focus of evil in the modern Democrat world, George W. Bush had a 55% positive rating this point before winning his reelection campaign.
So it is a possibility that the Dear Leader, President Obama, can pull it off. He will have a lot of advantages.
But he has to hope for something fast to turn things around. Because I do not believe that Team Obama is going to win in states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia this time around. And I think that they will have a lot of trouble keeping states like Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Oh yeah, in the mid term elections, these states went right and Republican big.
If this daily Gallup poll is not showing signs of life in the next three months, it will take a miracle for Team Obama to win reelection.
And they know it.
But for now, fellow conservative Republicans, relish the fact that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is worse than Jimmah Carter.
Can you smell loser?
The Dear Leader, President Obama, is the worst president at this stage of his presidency in my 47 years on God's Green Earth.
Well, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is worst in standing with the American people according to the latest polling from Gallup.
This is a daily tracking poll from Gallup. And it is 1,500 adults. Not registered voters. Not registered likely voters. Just 1,500 American adults.
The really bad thing about this is that if is was narrowed down, the numbers for the Dear Leader, President Obama, would more than likely be worse.
The fact is that the Dear Leader, President Obama, has been consistently underwater with the American people according to Gallup. If you go the link and scan over the chart, the last time the Dear Leader, President Obama, has been anywhere near 50% was the period over May 24-26. Since then, it has been all downhill.
So, if one wants to drink Obamaade and believe that this is all a mirage and he will top the results of 2008, take a peek at this from U. S. News and World Report.
The previous worst president of my life time, President Jimmah Carter, was at 51% at this point before the total tsunami of one Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1980.
In the link, Paul Bedard points out the trifecta of losers of the modern era were Presidents Carter, Gerald R. Ford and Harry S Truman. And only Mr. Truman pulled out a win in 1948. And yeah, Team Obama thinks that it is going to do the same thing this time around.
But I submit that it is Not. Going. To. Happen.
The economy is not going to drastically improve enough for the Dear Leader, President Obama, to take any credit. In fact, the economy is not exactly humming along at record growth.
Team Obama is pointing to stellar Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales. Yet according to this article, about half of Americans worry that they will not be able to afford Christmas this year. It could be that the two big shopping days of the year maybe all she wrote. Not a way to go into a presidential campaign, eh?
Something to consider is that the only president that had a positive rating at this stage and lost his reelection bid was George H. W. Bush.
But even more daunting is the focus of evil in the modern Democrat world, George W. Bush had a 55% positive rating this point before winning his reelection campaign.
So it is a possibility that the Dear Leader, President Obama, can pull it off. He will have a lot of advantages.
But he has to hope for something fast to turn things around. Because I do not believe that Team Obama is going to win in states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia this time around. And I think that they will have a lot of trouble keeping states like Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Oh yeah, in the mid term elections, these states went right and Republican big.
If this daily Gallup poll is not showing signs of life in the next three months, it will take a miracle for Team Obama to win reelection.
And they know it.
But for now, fellow conservative Republicans, relish the fact that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is worse than Jimmah Carter.
Can you smell loser?
Its Time To Blog Again
I am back to the blog after a well-deserved Thanksgiving break.
Mrs. RVFTLC, Scout the Wonderdog and your humble blogger spent the Thanksgiving weekend in the Great State of Utah, visiting Zion National Park and Bryce Canyon National Park.
While it was unusual not to celebrate Thanksgiving with family and or friends, we had a wonderful time exploring a part of the United States we have not been to before.
And I have to admit, Utah looks really good to this conservative, Republican.
It has now the most conservative, Republican county in the United States, Utah County. It has the obvious strong influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Yet because many people are moving from many different backgrounds, the Mormon influence is not as pronounced as at one time.
It is just the overall conservative way of life that makes Utah so attractive. Not to mention the total natural beauty.
I would advise everyone to visit Utah at least once and to see the two National Parks we visited. They are amazing.
But now, vacation is over and the real world beckons. Regretably. But we have wonderful memories of a great trip.
Mrs. RVFTLC, Scout the Wonderdog and your humble blogger spent the Thanksgiving weekend in the Great State of Utah, visiting Zion National Park and Bryce Canyon National Park.
While it was unusual not to celebrate Thanksgiving with family and or friends, we had a wonderful time exploring a part of the United States we have not been to before.
And I have to admit, Utah looks really good to this conservative, Republican.
It has now the most conservative, Republican county in the United States, Utah County. It has the obvious strong influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Yet because many people are moving from many different backgrounds, the Mormon influence is not as pronounced as at one time.
It is just the overall conservative way of life that makes Utah so attractive. Not to mention the total natural beauty.
I would advise everyone to visit Utah at least once and to see the two National Parks we visited. They are amazing.
But now, vacation is over and the real world beckons. Regretably. But we have wonderful memories of a great trip.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Los Angeles Trying To Coddle "Occupying" Vermin
As I have written, I am growing beyond weary of the "occupy" crowd. I have resorted to calling them vermin. Those that are part of this "movement" are continuing to believe that there is a free lunch. That society owes them something. Anything.
Well, leave it to Los Angeles and the brain trust led by Mayor Antonio Villar.
It appears that rather than confront and break up the vermin "occupying" around the iconic city hall, they are going to try to make a deal.
It is amazing that these vermin, people diametrically opposed to the American system of government and way of life are, essentially, going to be given office space. And farmland if they just end their "occupation".
Gee, I guess this is how we could have won World War II, right kiddies?!
Are you frickin' kidding me?!
No, this is really what is happening.
According to the Left Angeles Times, one of the lead negotiators is one Jim Lafferty of a group called the National Lawyers Guild, a left-wing fifth columnist organization undermining from within the United States.
It is a capitulation that this is a legitimate group. That the city of Los Angeles will seek to reward those for their "occupation" by handing them means to carry out their work.
If that is not the case, then why does one Mario Brito, a leader in the Los Angeles "occupy" movement think it is an opportunity to expand the protests? That having an actual space will help them in their cause?
Should the effort be to remove these vermin, who have harassed many of those who work in and around the city hall and downtown Los Angeles area by any means necessary?
Not here in La La Land.
No, image seems to be more important than sending a message. That message should be enough is enough. If you really want the change that you seek, you need to stop the "occupying" and start participating in the system.
That is what separates the "occupiers" from the Tea Party. Well, a lot of things, but this is the gulf that makes any comparison illegitimate.
Those of us in the Tea Party movement believe in the American system. That getting like-minded people to run for office and seek change within the framework of the constitutional republic. No Tea Party person seeks to overthrow the government. No Tea Party person seeks to change from a mixed free-market economy to a socialist model. Yet those are two huge things the "occupiers" want to do. And the Tea Party never, ever has "occupied" anything. We have attended many political functions and asked our representatives pointed questions about where they stand on major issues. And our rallies take place in one day for a short time. For we actually have jobs and need to work.
And the Tea Party has never blackmailed any government to give them office space, farmland or anything.
It amazes me to write this, but I never thought I would write that Los Angeles political leadership makes San Francisco seem right-wing in comparison.
Coddling criminals is not what Los Angeles leadership should be doing. They should be removing them. Period.
Well, leave it to Los Angeles and the brain trust led by Mayor Antonio Villar.
It appears that rather than confront and break up the vermin "occupying" around the iconic city hall, they are going to try to make a deal.
It is amazing that these vermin, people diametrically opposed to the American system of government and way of life are, essentially, going to be given office space. And farmland if they just end their "occupation".
Gee, I guess this is how we could have won World War II, right kiddies?!
Are you frickin' kidding me?!
No, this is really what is happening.
According to the Left Angeles Times, one of the lead negotiators is one Jim Lafferty of a group called the National Lawyers Guild, a left-wing fifth columnist organization undermining from within the United States.
It is a capitulation that this is a legitimate group. That the city of Los Angeles will seek to reward those for their "occupation" by handing them means to carry out their work.
If that is not the case, then why does one Mario Brito, a leader in the Los Angeles "occupy" movement think it is an opportunity to expand the protests? That having an actual space will help them in their cause?
Should the effort be to remove these vermin, who have harassed many of those who work in and around the city hall and downtown Los Angeles area by any means necessary?
Not here in La La Land.
No, image seems to be more important than sending a message. That message should be enough is enough. If you really want the change that you seek, you need to stop the "occupying" and start participating in the system.
That is what separates the "occupiers" from the Tea Party. Well, a lot of things, but this is the gulf that makes any comparison illegitimate.
Those of us in the Tea Party movement believe in the American system. That getting like-minded people to run for office and seek change within the framework of the constitutional republic. No Tea Party person seeks to overthrow the government. No Tea Party person seeks to change from a mixed free-market economy to a socialist model. Yet those are two huge things the "occupiers" want to do. And the Tea Party never, ever has "occupied" anything. We have attended many political functions and asked our representatives pointed questions about where they stand on major issues. And our rallies take place in one day for a short time. For we actually have jobs and need to work.
And the Tea Party has never blackmailed any government to give them office space, farmland or anything.
It amazes me to write this, but I never thought I would write that Los Angeles political leadership makes San Francisco seem right-wing in comparison.
Coddling criminals is not what Los Angeles leadership should be doing. They should be removing them. Period.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
More Lefty Media Misinformation
In yesterday's Left Angeles Times, a poll was released regarding Californians views of the so-called California Dream Act.
What is important is how this was relayed both in print at the local news rack and online.
The headline in the print edition, and the lead story, reads as follows verbatim:
USC/DORNSIFE/
TIMES POLL
DREAM Act has state voters divided
Nearly 80% of Latinos back government
aid for illegal immigrants at state
universities, versus 30% of whites.
Now for the headline online:
USC/DORNSIFE
TIMES POLL
Survey finds ethnic divide among voters on DREAM Act
Among Latinos, 79% support government financial aid for illegal immigrants who attend state universities, compared with 30% of whites. And 49% of all respondents say UC and Cal State campuses are not very affordable or are unaffordable.
Now, what do you think is wrong with the headline?
Well, if you read the print edition, you would be led to believe that the poll itself is say maybe 50-50. If you read the headline only online, it defines an ethnic divide among voters.
Yet the real story is really buried in the article.
The fact is that among all voters, no matter ethnicity, only 40% of all polled support the California Dream Act. A number of 55% oppose the California Dream Act.
So, where is the division?
Seems to me that the majority of all polled oppose the act. The only group supporting it in any large numbers are Hispanics.
And Whites support/oppose it roughly about 30% to 70%. What I can not find is how the numbers broke down among other ethnic groups. Groups as Asian-Americans and Black Americans. It would seem that if we saw those numbers, while maybe not as negative as Whites, it would show that they do not support the act either. That is why you have a 40% for and 55% against split.
But the way that the Times portrays this as a battle between Whites and Hispanics. No doubt that the California DREAM Act is a boon to illegal aliens in the schools in California. It gives them a break at the expense of just as deserving, American-born Hispanics. These illegal aliens get to pay in-state tuition rather than the out-of-state that they should be paying. Actually, they should be paying what an international student would pay. Since they are not American citizens. And not citizens of the state of California.
And I wonder how many of the American born Hispanics, when they understand what this means for their potential family members, really do support the act?
But I fault a newspaper that should report the fact of the poll. That the majority of California registered voters oppose the California DREAM Act. That the underlying fact is that, again since I do not have access to other ethnic groups polled, only Hispanics seem to strongly favor the act.
But the Left Angeles Times seems to want to bury that real fact. No, they want to fan the flames of raaaaacism. That the eeeeevvvvviiilllll White people want to keep all the Hispanics down.
No, we do not. We want those who can to pursue higher education. And no, I don't want to throw those students here illegally out of the United States. They should just have to pay the higher cost.
And the real tragedy is that this is the Democrat party buying Hispanic votes. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is too bad that the Left Angeles Times used their poll for manipulation and not the facts.
What is important is how this was relayed both in print at the local news rack and online.
The headline in the print edition, and the lead story, reads as follows verbatim:
USC/DORNSIFE/
TIMES POLL
DREAM Act has state voters divided
Nearly 80% of Latinos back government
aid for illegal immigrants at state
universities, versus 30% of whites.
Now for the headline online:
USC/DORNSIFE
TIMES POLL
Survey finds ethnic divide among voters on DREAM Act
Among Latinos, 79% support government financial aid for illegal immigrants who attend state universities, compared with 30% of whites. And 49% of all respondents say UC and Cal State campuses are not very affordable or are unaffordable.
Now, what do you think is wrong with the headline?
Well, if you read the print edition, you would be led to believe that the poll itself is say maybe 50-50. If you read the headline only online, it defines an ethnic divide among voters.
Yet the real story is really buried in the article.
The fact is that among all voters, no matter ethnicity, only 40% of all polled support the California Dream Act. A number of 55% oppose the California Dream Act.
So, where is the division?
Seems to me that the majority of all polled oppose the act. The only group supporting it in any large numbers are Hispanics.
And Whites support/oppose it roughly about 30% to 70%. What I can not find is how the numbers broke down among other ethnic groups. Groups as Asian-Americans and Black Americans. It would seem that if we saw those numbers, while maybe not as negative as Whites, it would show that they do not support the act either. That is why you have a 40% for and 55% against split.
But the way that the Times portrays this as a battle between Whites and Hispanics. No doubt that the California DREAM Act is a boon to illegal aliens in the schools in California. It gives them a break at the expense of just as deserving, American-born Hispanics. These illegal aliens get to pay in-state tuition rather than the out-of-state that they should be paying. Actually, they should be paying what an international student would pay. Since they are not American citizens. And not citizens of the state of California.
And I wonder how many of the American born Hispanics, when they understand what this means for their potential family members, really do support the act?
But I fault a newspaper that should report the fact of the poll. That the majority of California registered voters oppose the California DREAM Act. That the underlying fact is that, again since I do not have access to other ethnic groups polled, only Hispanics seem to strongly favor the act.
But the Left Angeles Times seems to want to bury that real fact. No, they want to fan the flames of raaaaacism. That the eeeeevvvvviiilllll White people want to keep all the Hispanics down.
No, we do not. We want those who can to pursue higher education. And no, I don't want to throw those students here illegally out of the United States. They should just have to pay the higher cost.
And the real tragedy is that this is the Democrat party buying Hispanic votes. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is too bad that the Left Angeles Times used their poll for manipulation and not the facts.
A Rocker's View Of Conservatives Needs A Conservative Primer
I start this post pointing out that your humble blogger loves rock music. Hard rock, metal, alternative, whatever it is called now a days. From such seminal bands as Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin, to the 1980s and Iron Maiden, Metallica, to the 90s and Nirvana, and alt bands to the 2000s and bands like Rage Against The Machine, Rise Against I have followed the music with great love and interest.
So, I recently saw the Foo Fighters in concert at the once Fabulous Forum in Inglewood, California. There is a post on why it is the once Fabulous Forum.
But in today's Left Angeles Times was The Red Bulletin, the magazine put out by Red Bull.
On the front cover was my man, the front-man of the Foos, Dave Grohl. And the accompanying article about him and music.
In the article, definitely worth the read, Mr. Grohl is asked about the Dear Leader, President Obama. And I knew that I would not be happy with the answer. And he was asked if he would support the Dear Leader, President Obama's reelection. And I was even less happy with the Q and A:
If he asks, will you support him in his 2012 re-election bid?
Absolutely. He’s got the toughest job on earth. I would hate to hand the administration over to another party that is just focused on corporation, greed and money. You know, I’m a fun, peace-loving guy, but sometimes the right wing gets a little too selfish.
Well, he is not downright insulting to conservatives and in a way just rather around the edges of grasping legitimate policy differences between conservatives and modern liberals.
I don't take my politics from celebrity whether they be on the left or the right. Many do and that is tragic.
So, in reading that part of the interview with Mr. Grohl, I find it is time for what I will call a conservative primer. It is what basically conservatives believe. And it is more personally what I believe as a conservative. Again, this is what I understand makes a conservative person.
First, a conservative believes in personal responsibility.
We all have to take an inventory of ourselves from time to time. Whether we are doing the right things in life or not. It is not just from a religious but a moral point of view. We believe that when one does wrong in life, there are consequences. But that there is also an understanding of the wrong and a way to change. Thus I, for one, believe in the ability of people to change based on an acceptance of personal responsibility. It also extends to our relationship with one another. It means not being a jerk to someone else. It means to be treated the way we or I would want to be treated.
Conservatives believe in thrift.
What that means is that we do not believe in living beyond one's means. What we have been told seemingly throughout my lifetime is that we can live beyond our means and that we should not want but demand the best in life. Thus I try to shop at the market with coupons. Look for the bargains. Don't go to Nordstrom's, but will go to Nordstrom Rack. Look for things on sale. Put a lot of money down on a home as we did and be able to prepare for the rainy day. We are not always good at that, which leads me back to accepting responsibility when we do not.
Conservatives do believe in taking care of one another. But not at government expense. We believe in the power of charities and faith-based institutions to provide for those less fortunate. We also believe in personal involvement to that end. It is not just about writing a check and then doing nothing more. Many of us do volunteer our time. Two years ago, Mrs. RVFTLC and I volunteered to serve Thanksgiving to those less fortunate in El Monte, California at our church's outreach. And we serve on the board of our Transitional Housing program at our church. It for those addicts who are trying to get back into society. In other words, we put our money where our mouths are.
In terms of government, we conservatives do believe in small, limited government at all levels. And we believe in bottom-up government. We believe that government at the most local of level can meet the needs of the people best. That the more government is centralized, whether in Washington, D. C. or state capitals, it is more removed from the very people it is to serve. Small, limited government is not as susceptible to the corruption and excess that big, unregulated government is.
We conservatives value tradition. But not just for the sake of tradition. And we are open to necessary change. Not change for the sake of it. Or to create some social experimentation.
Thus we look to history as our guide. Why we accept and respect how our Great Land came to be is because we study the history. From the first settlers. Those who landed on Plymouth Rock. Those that wrote the Mayflower Compact. Those that began the eventual United States of America. Those that wrote the most amazing document, the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation. The Constitution.
The constitution is an amazing document for it sets a delineation of power between three co-equal branches of government. The legislative, executive and judicial branches. All are to respect one another.
And the constitution is always amendable. But not made easy to do so. It is intentionally made hard to not have bad amendments adopted willy nilly. Thus it places a great deal of burden on the legislative and executive branches. The judicial, at its best, simply interprets the constitution and sometimes acts as a referee.
Conservatism is not perfect. We have made mistakes and have to reflect on those errors.
One that I can think of his how most people that identified themselves as conservatives opposed entering World War II. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Many conservatives did not want to engage in a foreign war. Many thought that World War I was one we did not have to be in.
But when we were attacked that Sunday morning in December, it changed everything. Thoughtful conservatives changed their mind and recognized that the Axis powers needed to be defeated. What separated conservatives from many liberals was the recognition that there was another evil that needed to be defeated. That other evil was communism.
And the Cold War was born.
Conservatives did not have a solid voice in the defeat of the communists really until Ronald Reagan became president. He laid it all our there for the world to see. He said bluntly that communism was an evil empire. And that it would be defeated. And for the most part, it has been. Even in Red China, what passes for communism would have Chairman Mao rolling in his grave. The few outposts of the brutality that is communism are on their last legs. Hopefully in our lifetimes.
What I have written is really a short primer on what it is that conservatives believe. It is to respond to people that have a negative, not necessarily informed view of what it means to be a conservative.
And it is true. On the sidebar of this blog, I believe that to be a conservative is to be a real rebel. Especially on the college campuses throughout the United States. To many of one's friends and relatives. it is saying the the prevailing liberal world view is what is wrong. It is taking on what has really become the establishment.
I do not expect Dave Grohl or any other rocker to get it. I think that he knows a little about politics like many people. And unlike some on the left, I do not believe that he is trying to intentionally offend a possibly large part of the fan base.
But in reading his otherwise excellent interview, it was this I feel the need to speak up for and about conservatism. Albeit very briefly.
So, I owe a big thanks to Mr. Grohl. And while we strongly disagree about politics, I still love the Foo Fighters and the great rock 'n roll you put out there.
So, I recently saw the Foo Fighters in concert at the once Fabulous Forum in Inglewood, California. There is a post on why it is the once Fabulous Forum.
But in today's Left Angeles Times was The Red Bulletin, the magazine put out by Red Bull.
On the front cover was my man, the front-man of the Foos, Dave Grohl. And the accompanying article about him and music.
In the article, definitely worth the read, Mr. Grohl is asked about the Dear Leader, President Obama. And I knew that I would not be happy with the answer. And he was asked if he would support the Dear Leader, President Obama's reelection. And I was even less happy with the Q and A:
If he asks, will you support him in his 2012 re-election bid?
Absolutely. He’s got the toughest job on earth. I would hate to hand the administration over to another party that is just focused on corporation, greed and money. You know, I’m a fun, peace-loving guy, but sometimes the right wing gets a little too selfish.
Well, he is not downright insulting to conservatives and in a way just rather around the edges of grasping legitimate policy differences between conservatives and modern liberals.
I don't take my politics from celebrity whether they be on the left or the right. Many do and that is tragic.
So, in reading that part of the interview with Mr. Grohl, I find it is time for what I will call a conservative primer. It is what basically conservatives believe. And it is more personally what I believe as a conservative. Again, this is what I understand makes a conservative person.
First, a conservative believes in personal responsibility.
We all have to take an inventory of ourselves from time to time. Whether we are doing the right things in life or not. It is not just from a religious but a moral point of view. We believe that when one does wrong in life, there are consequences. But that there is also an understanding of the wrong and a way to change. Thus I, for one, believe in the ability of people to change based on an acceptance of personal responsibility. It also extends to our relationship with one another. It means not being a jerk to someone else. It means to be treated the way we or I would want to be treated.
Conservatives believe in thrift.
What that means is that we do not believe in living beyond one's means. What we have been told seemingly throughout my lifetime is that we can live beyond our means and that we should not want but demand the best in life. Thus I try to shop at the market with coupons. Look for the bargains. Don't go to Nordstrom's, but will go to Nordstrom Rack. Look for things on sale. Put a lot of money down on a home as we did and be able to prepare for the rainy day. We are not always good at that, which leads me back to accepting responsibility when we do not.
Conservatives do believe in taking care of one another. But not at government expense. We believe in the power of charities and faith-based institutions to provide for those less fortunate. We also believe in personal involvement to that end. It is not just about writing a check and then doing nothing more. Many of us do volunteer our time. Two years ago, Mrs. RVFTLC and I volunteered to serve Thanksgiving to those less fortunate in El Monte, California at our church's outreach. And we serve on the board of our Transitional Housing program at our church. It for those addicts who are trying to get back into society. In other words, we put our money where our mouths are.
In terms of government, we conservatives do believe in small, limited government at all levels. And we believe in bottom-up government. We believe that government at the most local of level can meet the needs of the people best. That the more government is centralized, whether in Washington, D. C. or state capitals, it is more removed from the very people it is to serve. Small, limited government is not as susceptible to the corruption and excess that big, unregulated government is.
We conservatives value tradition. But not just for the sake of tradition. And we are open to necessary change. Not change for the sake of it. Or to create some social experimentation.
Thus we look to history as our guide. Why we accept and respect how our Great Land came to be is because we study the history. From the first settlers. Those who landed on Plymouth Rock. Those that wrote the Mayflower Compact. Those that began the eventual United States of America. Those that wrote the most amazing document, the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation. The Constitution.
The constitution is an amazing document for it sets a delineation of power between three co-equal branches of government. The legislative, executive and judicial branches. All are to respect one another.
And the constitution is always amendable. But not made easy to do so. It is intentionally made hard to not have bad amendments adopted willy nilly. Thus it places a great deal of burden on the legislative and executive branches. The judicial, at its best, simply interprets the constitution and sometimes acts as a referee.
Conservatism is not perfect. We have made mistakes and have to reflect on those errors.
One that I can think of his how most people that identified themselves as conservatives opposed entering World War II. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Many conservatives did not want to engage in a foreign war. Many thought that World War I was one we did not have to be in.
But when we were attacked that Sunday morning in December, it changed everything. Thoughtful conservatives changed their mind and recognized that the Axis powers needed to be defeated. What separated conservatives from many liberals was the recognition that there was another evil that needed to be defeated. That other evil was communism.
And the Cold War was born.
Conservatives did not have a solid voice in the defeat of the communists really until Ronald Reagan became president. He laid it all our there for the world to see. He said bluntly that communism was an evil empire. And that it would be defeated. And for the most part, it has been. Even in Red China, what passes for communism would have Chairman Mao rolling in his grave. The few outposts of the brutality that is communism are on their last legs. Hopefully in our lifetimes.
What I have written is really a short primer on what it is that conservatives believe. It is to respond to people that have a negative, not necessarily informed view of what it means to be a conservative.
And it is true. On the sidebar of this blog, I believe that to be a conservative is to be a real rebel. Especially on the college campuses throughout the United States. To many of one's friends and relatives. it is saying the the prevailing liberal world view is what is wrong. It is taking on what has really become the establishment.
I do not expect Dave Grohl or any other rocker to get it. I think that he knows a little about politics like many people. And unlike some on the left, I do not believe that he is trying to intentionally offend a possibly large part of the fan base.
But in reading his otherwise excellent interview, it was this I feel the need to speak up for and about conservatism. Albeit very briefly.
So, I owe a big thanks to Mr. Grohl. And while we strongly disagree about politics, I still love the Foo Fighters and the great rock 'n roll you put out there.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Vermin Escaping From "Occupy" Zones
Ahh, today is the second month anniversary of the so-called "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
So how to celebrate?
By being like the vermin that most are, they are leaving (well being thrown out, finally!) their so-called "occupy" zones for many a downtown to get their sycophants and hangers-on all ramped-up.
Since the "occupy" movement jumped the shark a while back, they are doubling-down and taking their protests right to the heart of their hatred.
Today, the "occupiers" went all over New York City. To Wall Street itself. Then marching around the whole of Manhattan and on the iconic Brooklyn Bridge.
But read what this "occupier", David Suker, said about the day's activities:
"We just encircled Wall Street. We'll do it all day," said David Suker, a protester who was among the crowd, distributing copies of the "Occupy Wall St. Journal."
"If we don't have the park, we'll take the streets. If we can't take Wall Street, we'll take the side streets," he said.
OK, this is the problem with the whole "occupy" movement.
They are taking this as if it is a war, not a political movement. Again, as I pointed out as to why the "occupy" movement continues to lose support, it is because they sound and act patently anti-American. Like the anti-Vietnam war protesters, once there is violence and radicalism, the Great Silent Majority turn away. Even if they may agree with the basic point. And even then, that opinion may change.
While there was the joy of vermin desperately trying to really take Wall Street, their brethren were busy all over the United States.
Here in my neck of the woods, in downtown Los Angeles, the "occupiers" were pretty busy today.
While only 23 vermin were taken off the streets, they definitely made their creepy presence felt. Twenty-one of those arrested were sitting in a circle, in the middle of a major intersection. Of course they were blocking traffic in the middle of rush hour. Nice. But what does one expect of unrestrained vermin? Again, here is the words of one of the "occupiers", an unidentified one, that spoke with the local Fox television affiliate, KTTV 11:
"If they (workers, commuters) go through any inconvenience, that is nothing compared to the inconvenience that the American people are going through right now."
Uh, yes it is a major inconvenience you dim bulb.
What if there was ambulance going to an emergency call? Or a fire engine? Is that a minor inconvenience? I think not.
Again, people may have some agreement with the "occupiers", they do not particularly like the actions that these vermin are taking. And eventually, those people are deciding that we, the American people, have had enough of this mindless class warfare.
And if that is not enough, even here in my fair burg of Pasadena, California, the vermin were out in force.
Local lefty "activist", Patrick Briggs, got some fellow vermin at a local fire station to use in support of raising taxes on those making $200,000 a year.
BTW, the definition of rich changes all the time with these lefties.
The issue is that seven of eight fire stations need seismic retrofitting. And one closed down recently because there is not enough funds anywhere to do the retrofitting.
But, according to Mr. Briggs and his fellow-travelling left-wing vermin, if we just raise taxes on those making $200,000 or more, all will be well. The Pasadena fire department will have all the money it needs to retrofit the fire stations. Maybe even more than that. The state will have more money than it needs. Blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Briggs, there are not enough Californians making $200,000 or more to tax to meet your nirvana. I am sorry to inform you of that fact and reality. Because once that were to happen, we will lose many of those taxpayers. And no way will we get enough, if any to replace those taxpayers.
Again, if government at all levels were to prioritize spending, many of these issues would not be issues.
But blaming the eeeeevvvvviiilllll "rich", Wall Street, the "bankers" and the like does not solve any problems. And "occupying" to bring about a change most Americans would not recognize is losing steam and fast.
But that is not stopping this vermin from scattering and seeking more chaos to bring about their "change".
So how to celebrate?
By being like the vermin that most are, they are leaving (well being thrown out, finally!) their so-called "occupy" zones for many a downtown to get their sycophants and hangers-on all ramped-up.
Since the "occupy" movement jumped the shark a while back, they are doubling-down and taking their protests right to the heart of their hatred.
Today, the "occupiers" went all over New York City. To Wall Street itself. Then marching around the whole of Manhattan and on the iconic Brooklyn Bridge.
But read what this "occupier", David Suker, said about the day's activities:
"We just encircled Wall Street. We'll do it all day," said David Suker, a protester who was among the crowd, distributing copies of the "Occupy Wall St. Journal."
"If we don't have the park, we'll take the streets. If we can't take Wall Street, we'll take the side streets," he said.
OK, this is the problem with the whole "occupy" movement.
They are taking this as if it is a war, not a political movement. Again, as I pointed out as to why the "occupy" movement continues to lose support, it is because they sound and act patently anti-American. Like the anti-Vietnam war protesters, once there is violence and radicalism, the Great Silent Majority turn away. Even if they may agree with the basic point. And even then, that opinion may change.
While there was the joy of vermin desperately trying to really take Wall Street, their brethren were busy all over the United States.
Here in my neck of the woods, in downtown Los Angeles, the "occupiers" were pretty busy today.
While only 23 vermin were taken off the streets, they definitely made their creepy presence felt. Twenty-one of those arrested were sitting in a circle, in the middle of a major intersection. Of course they were blocking traffic in the middle of rush hour. Nice. But what does one expect of unrestrained vermin? Again, here is the words of one of the "occupiers", an unidentified one, that spoke with the local Fox television affiliate, KTTV 11:
"If they (workers, commuters) go through any inconvenience, that is nothing compared to the inconvenience that the American people are going through right now."
Uh, yes it is a major inconvenience you dim bulb.
What if there was ambulance going to an emergency call? Or a fire engine? Is that a minor inconvenience? I think not.
Again, people may have some agreement with the "occupiers", they do not particularly like the actions that these vermin are taking. And eventually, those people are deciding that we, the American people, have had enough of this mindless class warfare.
And if that is not enough, even here in my fair burg of Pasadena, California, the vermin were out in force.
Local lefty "activist", Patrick Briggs, got some fellow vermin at a local fire station to use in support of raising taxes on those making $200,000 a year.
BTW, the definition of rich changes all the time with these lefties.
The issue is that seven of eight fire stations need seismic retrofitting. And one closed down recently because there is not enough funds anywhere to do the retrofitting.
But, according to Mr. Briggs and his fellow-travelling left-wing vermin, if we just raise taxes on those making $200,000 or more, all will be well. The Pasadena fire department will have all the money it needs to retrofit the fire stations. Maybe even more than that. The state will have more money than it needs. Blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Briggs, there are not enough Californians making $200,000 or more to tax to meet your nirvana. I am sorry to inform you of that fact and reality. Because once that were to happen, we will lose many of those taxpayers. And no way will we get enough, if any to replace those taxpayers.
Again, if government at all levels were to prioritize spending, many of these issues would not be issues.
But blaming the eeeeevvvvviiilllll "rich", Wall Street, the "bankers" and the like does not solve any problems. And "occupying" to bring about a change most Americans would not recognize is losing steam and fast.
But that is not stopping this vermin from scattering and seeking more chaos to bring about their "change".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)