OK, the headline is not meant as a tease.
It is a serious question.
Sure, I know. Conventional wisdom says that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney should not even bother to make any attempt here in the once Golden State. The Dear Leader, President Obama, has it in the bag.
Well, stories like this one last week will not help bring the Cali GOP back from the brink of the disastrous tenure of one Governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. A tenure that saw some real promise end up being the remainder of former Democrat Governor Gray Davis' second term and a third term as well.
Lets face it. We Republicans saw what a "moderate" can do and it is not pretty.
But in this presidential election year, a year in which the Republican party can all but get the White House redecorated for the Romney's, California's GOP looks really bad.
In fact, the reality is that if Mr. Romney is going to make even a half-hearted effort in Cali, he will not do it with direction from the Cali GOP. It looks like Mr. Romney will make any effort on his own.
Also in the article, and this may be a key as to if Mr. Romney can be at least competitive here, is that a cluster of local county GOPs that are filling a void. And there is the "Young Guns" GOP super PAC that House majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) is heading trying to get several new GOP congressmen elected.
In other words, at this point, there is a shell known as the California Republican party, but what is needed are some wins somewhere for it to regain relevance.
The Cali GOP chairman, Tom Del Beccaro makes a valid point that there is only so much money going around. And that donors are putting it, to be blunt, in other vehicles than the Cali GOP. But even with money woes, what is needed is a wholesale restructuring of how the Cali GOP will work, strengthening the county parties and not wasting valuable cash.
But at the end of the day, this state party desperately needs strong, no-holds barred leadership. Not just a wonk. But in the absence of high-elected officials, is willing to take it to the state Democrat leadership and the national party in Washington. This is not a job that can be outsourced. It needs to come from someone like Mr. Del Beccaro.
To make it any kind of race in November, the California GOP needs to get it finances in order, its leadership on the same page and stronger county parties could make this state competitive at the presidential level and definitely at the congressional level. And even at the state assembly and senate races.
If we do not, Hello Massachusetts GOP!*
*At this writing, the Massachusetts GOP has only 11% of the total registered voters in the state. They are a third party.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Mitt, Do NOT Take Election Advice From Sen. McCain
Mitt, Mitt, Mitt!!!
I beg and plead with you, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee! I beseech thee!
DO NOT TAKE ANY, I MEAN ANY, ELECTION ADVICE FROM ONE SEN. JOHN "F--- YOU" McCAIN!!!!!
Remember folks, when Sen. "F--- You" McCain was the Republican presidential nominee how well he did against the current occupier of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Well, I think that the above paragraph does tend to say it all, does it not?
But that does not mean Sen. "F--- You" McCain and his lap dog Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham did not offer him "advice" anyhow.
According to this article, Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham decided to offer an "Intervention" on Mitt Romney's stand on illegal immigration and what to do about it.
Uh, this is the same Sen. "F--- You" McCain that, in 2010, had to run to the right of illegal alien candidate J. D. Hayworth just to secure the Arizona Republican senate nomination for his 800th term as the senior senator.
Understand that Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham have been the leading Republicans in the senate that would grant amnesty to those illegal aliens already here in the United States. Way back in 2007, these jokers were so desperate that they were trying every trick in the legislative book to get passage of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform".
These two clowns are and always have been for amnesty for illegal aliens. The overwhelming majority are from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America. As such, it is pandering in the nth degree.
Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham somehow believe that if Republicans soften up and just let these folks stay in the United States and eventually become citizens, why they will not forget us Republicans and hence give us a permanent majority.
Yup, just as they did in 1986 when at least then President Ronald Reagan called it what it was, amnesty.
Gee, I think that there has not been an election since then in which the majority of Hispanics have voted for a Republican presidential candidate. The high-water mark is supposedly 44% for then President George W. Bush in 2004.
The bottom line is that going down that same road again is a recipe for disaster for the Republican party.
And Mitt Romney should not accept ANY advice from two of the biggest loser in the Republican party today.
Yup, just ask that President McCain fellow.
I beg and plead with you, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee! I beseech thee!
DO NOT TAKE ANY, I MEAN ANY, ELECTION ADVICE FROM ONE SEN. JOHN "F--- YOU" McCAIN!!!!!
Remember folks, when Sen. "F--- You" McCain was the Republican presidential nominee how well he did against the current occupier of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Well, I think that the above paragraph does tend to say it all, does it not?
But that does not mean Sen. "F--- You" McCain and his lap dog Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham did not offer him "advice" anyhow.
According to this article, Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham decided to offer an "Intervention" on Mitt Romney's stand on illegal immigration and what to do about it.
Uh, this is the same Sen. "F--- You" McCain that, in 2010, had to run to the right of illegal alien candidate J. D. Hayworth just to secure the Arizona Republican senate nomination for his 800th term as the senior senator.
Understand that Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham have been the leading Republicans in the senate that would grant amnesty to those illegal aliens already here in the United States. Way back in 2007, these jokers were so desperate that they were trying every trick in the legislative book to get passage of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform".
These two clowns are and always have been for amnesty for illegal aliens. The overwhelming majority are from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America. As such, it is pandering in the nth degree.
Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham somehow believe that if Republicans soften up and just let these folks stay in the United States and eventually become citizens, why they will not forget us Republicans and hence give us a permanent majority.
Yup, just as they did in 1986 when at least then President Ronald Reagan called it what it was, amnesty.
Gee, I think that there has not been an election since then in which the majority of Hispanics have voted for a Republican presidential candidate. The high-water mark is supposedly 44% for then President George W. Bush in 2004.
The bottom line is that going down that same road again is a recipe for disaster for the Republican party.
And Mitt Romney should not accept ANY advice from two of the biggest loser in the Republican party today.
Yup, just ask that President McCain fellow.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Say, Isn't Chik-fil-a A Private Company? And You DON'T Have To Eat There, Right?
Is it not rich that when a company does not follow the Politically Correct dogma and they are open about it, the PC crowd goes bat ape crazy about it?
Well, the president of the chicken sandwich restaurant chain, Chik-fil-a, Dan Cathy, stepped in it last week in an interview with two different outlets and came out of the closet.
As a conservative.
As a Christian.
And a defender of and supporter of traditional marriage. That of one man and one woman.
Well, it is not that it has been a secret that Chik-fil-a is a company that is headed by conservative Christians. But Mr. Cathy has decided to throw caution to the wind and speak out on the subject of traditional marriage.
And oh boy, the homosexual rights crowd, well they are just going ballistic. And right on cue, some sycophantic Democrat pols are saying how terrible it is and even threatening to not let Chik-fil-a open up in their cities.
Why even the mayor of that peaceful, very little crime and murder tottlin' town of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, said that Chik-fil-a is NOT welcome. Mr. Emmanuel even went so far as to say that Chik-fil-a does not have "Chicago values". Please, do not upchuck that chicken sandwich that you may be enjoying right now. Really, how insulting is that? Oh, and this dude, "Minister" Calypso Louis Farrakhan has the right "Chicago values". I believe that "Minister" Farrakhan is as much an opponent of same-sex marriage as is Mr. Cathy. So I ask the obvious question. What is the difference between the two men? One is nothing but a loud-mouth, racist, anti-Semite. The other is a devout Christian businessman who actually employs people and makes communities a better place. But I guess in Mr. Emmanuel's sorry world that is Chicago, you need the best connection to the criminals to make them stop with the killing that makes Chi-town number one in something. Murders.
Let me get something straight. No pun intended.
I shop at many places that, quite frankly, do not share what I believe in or my world view. In a recent post in which I wrote about large coffee house chains, I expressed that I purchase from the three large ones in So Cal. And slightly lamented that there is not a chain, or even one, place called Righty Coffee. The point of that post indirectly ties in right here.
I have never been to a Chik-fil-a restaurant. For one, the nearest one is about 50 miles in Rancho Cucamonga. And unless I have a reason to be there, I won't make a special drive to partake in the chicken sandwich. I did not know much about Chik-fil-a until this kerfuffle. I figured that it probably faced similar backlash as another food institution with Southern roots, Cracker Barrel.
Here is something interesting about a well-known hamburger chain in So Cal, In-n-Out burgers.
If you look very closely below at the bottom of the cup, there is this:
Now I do not think that is all that subtle since it directs the person interested to the most famous verse in the New Testament of the Holy Bible.
And on the package of fries is an obscure passage from the Old Testament book of Nahum.
Well, the president of the chicken sandwich restaurant chain, Chik-fil-a, Dan Cathy, stepped in it last week in an interview with two different outlets and came out of the closet.
As a conservative.
As a Christian.
And a defender of and supporter of traditional marriage. That of one man and one woman.
Well, it is not that it has been a secret that Chik-fil-a is a company that is headed by conservative Christians. But Mr. Cathy has decided to throw caution to the wind and speak out on the subject of traditional marriage.
And oh boy, the homosexual rights crowd, well they are just going ballistic. And right on cue, some sycophantic Democrat pols are saying how terrible it is and even threatening to not let Chik-fil-a open up in their cities.
Why even the mayor of that peaceful, very little crime and murder tottlin' town of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, said that Chik-fil-a is NOT welcome. Mr. Emmanuel even went so far as to say that Chik-fil-a does not have "Chicago values". Please, do not upchuck that chicken sandwich that you may be enjoying right now. Really, how insulting is that? Oh, and this dude, "Minister" Calypso Louis Farrakhan has the right "Chicago values". I believe that "Minister" Farrakhan is as much an opponent of same-sex marriage as is Mr. Cathy. So I ask the obvious question. What is the difference between the two men? One is nothing but a loud-mouth, racist, anti-Semite. The other is a devout Christian businessman who actually employs people and makes communities a better place. But I guess in Mr. Emmanuel's sorry world that is Chicago, you need the best connection to the criminals to make them stop with the killing that makes Chi-town number one in something. Murders.
Let me get something straight. No pun intended.
I shop at many places that, quite frankly, do not share what I believe in or my world view. In a recent post in which I wrote about large coffee house chains, I expressed that I purchase from the three large ones in So Cal. And slightly lamented that there is not a chain, or even one, place called Righty Coffee. The point of that post indirectly ties in right here.
I have never been to a Chik-fil-a restaurant. For one, the nearest one is about 50 miles in Rancho Cucamonga. And unless I have a reason to be there, I won't make a special drive to partake in the chicken sandwich. I did not know much about Chik-fil-a until this kerfuffle. I figured that it probably faced similar backlash as another food institution with Southern roots, Cracker Barrel.
Here is something interesting about a well-known hamburger chain in So Cal, In-n-Out burgers.
If you look very closely below at the bottom of the cup, there is this:
John 3:16
Now I do not think that is all that subtle since it directs the person interested to the most famous verse in the New Testament of the Holy Bible. And on the package of fries is an obscure passage from the Old Testament book of Nahum.
It is a little hard to see, but it directs the person to Nahum 1:7,
What, wait a minute? These people are, are putting biblical passages on their product! HOW DARE THEY! Why, I bet they are, are OH NOES! Eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll traditional, OH NO! Conservative Christians!
But hey, they must not be as Christian as Chik-fil-a. For In-n-Out is open on Sundays. Chik-fil-a loses a boatload of cash because they are actually closed on Sunday. And that is truly amazing in this day and age.
So, why do we not hear of their view on marriage? Because they choose not to. Simple as that.
It leads to the point of this post.
No one is forcing anyone to partake of Chik-fil-a. I do not think that Mr. Cathy is pulling people at gunpoint off the street to pony up to any of his restaurants. Same for In-n-Out. Same for Starbucks.
You see, that is the beauty of the free enterprise system. That it offers choice. If you want to partake of a business that shares many of your values, you can. And FTR, Chik-fil-a does not discriminate in service of hiring practices. I am absolutely certain that there are homosexuals working at many Chik-fil-a restaurants.
Because the CEO of the company was discussing the role of traditional marriage and the dangers, as he sees it, in the encroachment of same-sex marriage, he and a good chain are now in the cross hairs of the biggest bully class there is.
Left-wing homosexual activists.
In their world, once can not have an opinion or something that deviates from their scorched-earth policy of forcing "acceptance" every and anywhere.
I would like to ask all that buckle to these activists if they really have a change of heart or tire of the harassment and threatening nature of these "activists"
It is what leads to hysteria, lies and misstatements about Chik-fil-a and any other company that is led by conservative Americans.
Again, it is a choice. You do not have to eat there. Or shop there. Whatever. Because in the real world, we all find business that are led by people and ideology we may not like.
Chik-fil-a is a private company. It's leadership are devoted and devout Christians and have a strong point of view that one may not like. Just as I do not like Starbucks for that as they are on the left. But both companies, from what I know, provide excellent products and great customer service. And people seem to like working for both. And Chik-fil-a is not going to change. Again, this establishment is closed on Sundays. Rather than force them to change, find a place more reflective of your values.
That is one of the hallmarks of the United States.
That in many aspects of our life, we still have choice.
That in many aspects of our life, we still have choice.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
What Is The Difference Between Vacate And Forfeit To A Lot Of Penn State Football Players
The scandal that ended Penn State university as a football powerhouse, the case of the convicted child molester perv Jerry Sandusky, has claimed a lot more people than those directly or indirectly involved in the scandal.
Say hundreds of Penn State football player who had the misfortune of playing under the late former coach, Joe Paterno.
For you see, as part of the penalty thrown down by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), all the wins that Penn State football had between 1998-2011 have been "vacated".
Vacated? What exactly does that mean?
Well, lets take a look at the dictionary for the meaning as a verb and a noun.
Here is vacate as a verb:
1. to give up possession or occupancy of: to vacate an apartment.
Oh, and here is vacate as a verb in legalese:
There is no noun for vacate, so lets go to the noun definition of forfeit:
Say hundreds of Penn State football player who had the misfortune of playing under the late former coach, Joe Paterno.
For you see, as part of the penalty thrown down by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), all the wins that Penn State football had between 1998-2011 have been "vacated".
Vacated? What exactly does that mean?
Well, lets take a look at the dictionary for the meaning as a verb and a noun.
Here is vacate as a verb:
1. to give up possession or occupancy of: to vacate an apartment.
2. to give up or relinquish (an office, position, etc.): to vacate the presidency of a firm.
3. to render inoperative; deprive of validity; void; annul: to vacate a legal judgment.
Oh, and here is vacate as a verb in legalese:
| a.to cancel or rescind | |
| b.to make void or of no effect; annul | |
1. a fine; penalty.
3. something to which the right is lost, as for commission of a crime or misdeed, neglect of duty, or violation of a contract.
4. an article deposited in a game because of a mistake and redeemable by a fine or penalty.
5. forfeits, ( used with a singular verb ) a game in which such articles are taken from the players
So, if one looks at the definitions for both words, there is a lot of similarity. The closest vacate comes to is the legal definition A-to cancel or rescind. And for forfeit, the closest to what happened is 5-(used with a singular verb) a game in which such articles are taken from the players.
OK, to a player, what is the difference?
NOTHING! Not one damn thing.
It is semantics. OK, the NCAA is not forcing Penn State to forfeit their wins. That starts getting complicated because a lot of schools would thus have to adjust their records that reflect wins when they were losses. And it would possibly affect some teams that may have been on the bubble of getting possible bowl invites. No, vacating just is cleaner, right?
No, it is not. Because for those who played the games, win or lose, they are all losses now. Maybe not in the records, but they are deemed losses. Especially because those games from 1998-2011 were coached bythe focus of evil in the modern world, Joe Paterno.
What the NCAA is really doing is sticking it to a dead guy the only way that they feel they could. But again there is a helluva lot of collateral damage for those players. Players that for once had not one thing to do with this scandal. A real scandal of epic proportions.
You know what else is a scandal? Lashing out at JoPa, as Mr. Paterno was once affectionately called before his unceremonious fall.
Why one would think that JoPa was some Svengali and he was totally in charge of Penn State.
The fact of the matter is that everyone involved played each other and it was to all their benefit to not let this Sandusky scandal, well become one.
Because a successful college program brings big bucks to a university, yes often times the administrators will look the other way when the coaching and athletic bosses try to get a leg up any way possible. And yes, some violate NCAA rules. As long as the money rolls in, everyone is happy.
The fact is ALL involved were short sighted.
The fact that JoPa basically did not want to believe that the man he wanted to be his successor as coach was in fact a horrible perv should have been a sign to school administrators that he may have overstayed his time. But hey, as long as over 110,000 were packing Beaver Stadium and there was money coming in from numerous streams, well they looked the other way.
What should have happened is that JoPa should have been eased out and a successor named around 1999. Then the non-athletic administrators should have turned Mr. Sandusky over to the authorities.
But that did not happen.
And the NCAA wants to make an example out of a dead man, JoPa. And in the process have to twist and turn to explain to the hundreds that played football for the Penn State Nittany Lions that well, their efforts were nice. But we "vacated" your wins. It is the only way to nail that dead guy, JoPa.
Which shows that the NCAA does not really get it.
Seeking vengeance, no matter how appealing it may seem does nothing to address the problem. That way too many people just looked the other way. They all enabled each other.
Again, the players did nothing wrong. They are the ones being punished. Yes, it is beyond punitive. It is petty. It showed how in reality the NCAA was in fact and indeed impotent in meting out a punishment and potential redemption for the future.
To the players that played football for Penn State from 1998-2011, there is no difference between forfeiting all their wins and vacating them. They are losses to them. And a tragedy in an attempt to seek righteous justice for those young boys molested by a man with power, Jerry Sandusky. Remember, Mr. Sandusky is the one that committed the crimes. Even if he was not stopped, he is the one that must pay the most. Not players whose only "crime" was playing for the wrong school, the wrong coach at the wrong time.
No, it is not. Because for those who played the games, win or lose, they are all losses now. Maybe not in the records, but they are deemed losses. Especially because those games from 1998-2011 were coached by
What the NCAA is really doing is sticking it to a dead guy the only way that they feel they could. But again there is a helluva lot of collateral damage for those players. Players that for once had not one thing to do with this scandal. A real scandal of epic proportions.
You know what else is a scandal? Lashing out at JoPa, as Mr. Paterno was once affectionately called before his unceremonious fall.
Why one would think that JoPa was some Svengali and he was totally in charge of Penn State.
The fact of the matter is that everyone involved played each other and it was to all their benefit to not let this Sandusky scandal, well become one.
Because a successful college program brings big bucks to a university, yes often times the administrators will look the other way when the coaching and athletic bosses try to get a leg up any way possible. And yes, some violate NCAA rules. As long as the money rolls in, everyone is happy.
The fact is ALL involved were short sighted.
The fact that JoPa basically did not want to believe that the man he wanted to be his successor as coach was in fact a horrible perv should have been a sign to school administrators that he may have overstayed his time. But hey, as long as over 110,000 were packing Beaver Stadium and there was money coming in from numerous streams, well they looked the other way.
What should have happened is that JoPa should have been eased out and a successor named around 1999. Then the non-athletic administrators should have turned Mr. Sandusky over to the authorities.
But that did not happen.
And the NCAA wants to make an example out of a dead man, JoPa. And in the process have to twist and turn to explain to the hundreds that played football for the Penn State Nittany Lions that well, their efforts were nice. But we "vacated" your wins. It is the only way to nail that dead guy, JoPa.
Which shows that the NCAA does not really get it.
Seeking vengeance, no matter how appealing it may seem does nothing to address the problem. That way too many people just looked the other way. They all enabled each other.
Again, the players did nothing wrong. They are the ones being punished. Yes, it is beyond punitive. It is petty. It showed how in reality the NCAA was in fact and indeed impotent in meting out a punishment and potential redemption for the future.
To the players that played football for Penn State from 1998-2011, there is no difference between forfeiting all their wins and vacating them. They are losses to them. And a tragedy in an attempt to seek righteous justice for those young boys molested by a man with power, Jerry Sandusky. Remember, Mr. Sandusky is the one that committed the crimes. Even if he was not stopped, he is the one that must pay the most. Not players whose only "crime" was playing for the wrong school, the wrong coach at the wrong time.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Two More Reasons California Is Heading For Fiscal Armageddon
These two articles, one in the Left Angeles Times and the other in The Sacramento Bee, leave no doubt in this blogger's mind that the so-called political class really does not understand what financial mess they are leaving for us to pick up at some point in the future.
Lets start with the article in the Times about the California state legislature agreeing to a slew of pay raises for legislative aides.
According to the article about 1,000 aides received about $4,600,000 annually. So lets do some math. It turns out that the Dirty Thousand received about an average raise of $4,600. This on the heels of the same legislature forcing state employees to take a 4.62% pay cut to try to balance the state budget. Sure, there is always going to be some justification for these aides getting this nice pay raise. One is that they are trying to make up for years with no raises for these legislative lackeys.
BOO! HOO BOO! FRICKIN HOO!
But what you have to read is what some of these people are making. Some are making more than the state legislators themselves. Here is the money graph from this article:
The highest-paid aide to receive a raise was Christopher Woods, chief budget consultant for the Assembly speaker. Woods' pay grew 3.6%, to $193,476. Catherine Abernathy, chief of staff for Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), received 37%, for a salary of $65,832 a year, after taking on additional duties.
Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot?
Let me get this straight.
Christopher Woods, a budget consultant makes more than the Speaker of the Assembly, John Perez (D-Los Angeles)? FTR, Speaker Perez makes close to $96,000 a year. While both are totally obscene, Mr. Woods is more so because he is a consultant that should not be making more than a legislator, period. Yet he does.
At least Catherine Abernathy makes less than her boss, Assemblyman Shannon Grove. But her raise was an astounding 37%. Thirty frickin seven percent?!
And these same people asked the nuts-and-bolts state employees to take a close to five percent pay cut?
Unreal.
But this is California.
Oh, and the thrust of the Times article is not the outrage of the raises. No, it is about how this makes Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown's job of selling a tax hike harder. And it should be. If the very people wanting us to vote to raise our taxes won't tighten their belts, why in the hell should we vote for the tax hike in the first place?
This is, once again, a perfect case for making the state legislature a part-time one. There is no reason that we need all of these paid aides to promote the very legislation that continues to chip away at our freedoms in this once Golden State.
But if you think that is bad, the article by Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee points not just to this outrage but the outage of Gov. Moonbeam Brown pushing for a "bullet train" that no one wants. Oh, Gov. Moonbeam Brown made sure that two of the state's major media markets, Los Angeles and San Francisco, would put this at the top of the news when he signed legislation to sell bonds to financially support this boondoggle. Yet Gov. Moonbeam Brown did not step foot in the Central Valley? Why not? Because opposition is the strongest there than any other part of the state. Yet the state as a whole does not support this now. Why the push? I guess it is because Gov. Moonbeam Brown is so hellbent on making this a reality, that he will even dismiss the voters that oppose it.
Get it? We are pretty much too stupid to know what is good for us.
It is OK to give pay raises to state sycophants, er aides, but the rest, well you get a pay cut and you will enjoy it. Be thankful that you have a job, right?
And you know, you will love this "bullet train" at some point. Whenever it is built. Just take it, California.
The arrogance of the Sacramento political class, Democrats and Republicans must be knocked down. It is one of the reasons to oppose all tax hike plans on the November ballot. We must rise up and demand that the legislature be put back to a part-time body of true citizen legislators. Not career pols that have put this state on a fast track to financial Armageddon.
Lets start with the article in the Times about the California state legislature agreeing to a slew of pay raises for legislative aides.
According to the article about 1,000 aides received about $4,600,000 annually. So lets do some math. It turns out that the Dirty Thousand received about an average raise of $4,600. This on the heels of the same legislature forcing state employees to take a 4.62% pay cut to try to balance the state budget. Sure, there is always going to be some justification for these aides getting this nice pay raise. One is that they are trying to make up for years with no raises for these legislative lackeys.
BOO! HOO BOO! FRICKIN HOO!
But what you have to read is what some of these people are making. Some are making more than the state legislators themselves. Here is the money graph from this article:
The highest-paid aide to receive a raise was Christopher Woods, chief budget consultant for the Assembly speaker. Woods' pay grew 3.6%, to $193,476. Catherine Abernathy, chief of staff for Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), received 37%, for a salary of $65,832 a year, after taking on additional duties.
Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot?
Let me get this straight.
Christopher Woods, a budget consultant makes more than the Speaker of the Assembly, John Perez (D-Los Angeles)? FTR, Speaker Perez makes close to $96,000 a year. While both are totally obscene, Mr. Woods is more so because he is a consultant that should not be making more than a legislator, period. Yet he does.
At least Catherine Abernathy makes less than her boss, Assemblyman Shannon Grove. But her raise was an astounding 37%. Thirty frickin seven percent?!
And these same people asked the nuts-and-bolts state employees to take a close to five percent pay cut?
Unreal.
But this is California.
Oh, and the thrust of the Times article is not the outrage of the raises. No, it is about how this makes Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown's job of selling a tax hike harder. And it should be. If the very people wanting us to vote to raise our taxes won't tighten their belts, why in the hell should we vote for the tax hike in the first place?
This is, once again, a perfect case for making the state legislature a part-time one. There is no reason that we need all of these paid aides to promote the very legislation that continues to chip away at our freedoms in this once Golden State.
But if you think that is bad, the article by Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee points not just to this outrage but the outage of Gov. Moonbeam Brown pushing for a "bullet train" that no one wants. Oh, Gov. Moonbeam Brown made sure that two of the state's major media markets, Los Angeles and San Francisco, would put this at the top of the news when he signed legislation to sell bonds to financially support this boondoggle. Yet Gov. Moonbeam Brown did not step foot in the Central Valley? Why not? Because opposition is the strongest there than any other part of the state. Yet the state as a whole does not support this now. Why the push? I guess it is because Gov. Moonbeam Brown is so hellbent on making this a reality, that he will even dismiss the voters that oppose it.
Get it? We are pretty much too stupid to know what is good for us.
It is OK to give pay raises to state sycophants, er aides, but the rest, well you get a pay cut and you will enjoy it. Be thankful that you have a job, right?
And you know, you will love this "bullet train" at some point. Whenever it is built. Just take it, California.
The arrogance of the Sacramento political class, Democrats and Republicans must be knocked down. It is one of the reasons to oppose all tax hike plans on the November ballot. We must rise up and demand that the legislature be put back to a part-time body of true citizen legislators. Not career pols that have put this state on a fast track to financial Armageddon.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Massacre In Colorado
Last evening at this time, there were a lot of people in a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado watching the latest installment of the Batman trilogy, "The Dark Knight Rises," when a man went on a systematic murderous rampage that as of this writing killed 12 and wounded 58.
Before I continue, let me get something off my chest.
For those involved in this heinous act of violence, yes it is a tragedy. But the rest of us must look at what the accused gunman, 24 year-old James Holmes, as nothing but a criminal. Oh yes, probably it will come out a sociopath. But according to reports, Mr. Holmes is a damn smart one at that. But make no mistake. To start by referring to the event as a tragedy is to compare to a plane crash. Or an earthquake. Or a fire. Something that is unintentional, what we call in many cases an "Act of God". This Holmes fellow, he planned this crime. This is way to sophisticated to just be a case of someone just snapping one night. So please, this is a vicious crime and yes, it is evil. I will not refer to it as anything less.
One other thing is that reporting on these events has to not be sloppy and there should not be a damn agenda by so-called legacy media. Here, it is either referred to as the Leftywhore media.
Why am I upset?
Because of the "reporting" of Brian Ross of ABC news.
Mr. Ross went on the air with former Bill Clinton lackey George Stephanopolous to "report" that there is a James Holmes that is a member of a Colorado Tea Party group. Well, too bad that Mr. Ross was, to quote a fictional baseball announcer Harry Doyle from the movie Major League, "Just a little outside". In fact, waaay outside. The Mr. Holmes in question is a 52-year-old Hispanic man. And he is almost double the age of the actual suspect. Eventually ABC news was forced to issue a retraction.
And here is the statement from the ABC news website:
Editor's Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.
And it should have never gone down that road to begin with.
What if James Holmes could have been tied with the so-called Occupy movement? Does anyone thing that Mr. Ross would have gone of television breathlessly saying that Mr. Holmes was active in the Occupy movement?
Or what if it was not a White guy named James Holmes but a Middle-Eastern looking dude, oh I don't know, how about Mohammed Habbib? And what if based on that little, he could have been tied to Islamofacsist terror? Again, would Mr. Ross gone on the air with that information, tenuous at best.
HELL FRICKIN NO! And no on both counts. Because we have to be careful when it comes to the Occupy movement and we can not assume that anyone could do such a crime that is of Middle-Eastern origin.
When is the Leftywhore, legacy media going to not speculate but report facts as they are known? If you do not know for a fact that a suspect is part of any group, why the hell go on the air with such speculation with not one iota of fact to back it up?
There. This part of a rant is over.
There are so many layers to this story that this will go on for quite a long time.
There is the event itself.
How did this dude, Holmes, enter the particular theatre from an emergency exit?
Why were there very, very young children at this midnight premiere in the first place? A four-month old baby? A six-year old? What the hell kind of parents are this selfish that they would drag babies and very little kids to a midnight movie show?
Two aspects of the first-responders, the Aurora police.
One, the bravery that they took to quickly ascertain the situation and not wait for medical first responders. Many police officers gathered the wounded and took them to area hospitals. Who knows how many lives were saved because the police acted the way they did?
The second is the professional way that they showed absolute restraint in letting Mr. Holmes surrender to them.
What I am about to write maybe controversial, but it is what I am feeling about people that commit these evil acts and eventually get a stage to spout off their "reasons" for doing the act.
I do not think the overwhelming majority of Americans would have been upset if the police simply shot and killed Mr. Holmes right then and there. They could have said that he threatened them. Something. The only people that probably would be upset are the usual suspects. The ACLU crowd and some bloggers that value the life of scum over those that they kill for no reason.
I can only ask you to look at the case of the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Brevik. Since Norway has nothing in their criminal code for his act of terrorism, he may be confined to a mental institution for a grand total of 21 years. Now, more than likely he will be confined longer than the 21 year max because his freedom will be based on his ability to prove that he is not nuts. But I would not be all that surprised if he did get out in less than 21 years.
Another layer is how social media was used by the victims as they were evacuating the movie house. I for one would not be thinking do that, but some did. It gave a birds-eye view of terrorism.
And as always the outpouring of righteous grief and support to the victims, their families and the community that is Aurora, Colorado.
Both President Obama and the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney gave excellent remarks about the tragedy. And hey, on this no one better dump on President Obama for having a moment thinking about his own daughters, Malia and Sasha, and if they were in something horrific like that. He is a good dad and husband. Both men spoke from the heart. And that is what I want in situations like this. Though I pretty much loathe politicos giving comments in such situations, if they have to, both men did a great job.
There is a lot of time for the investigations, the obvious finger-pointing, the calls for gun control, the whole politics of this massacre. But for now, we must let these people bury their dead and the community of Aurora, Colorado grieve and begin the process of getting their shattered lives back together as much as possible.
Bloggers note.
I started this on early this morning. However I was having computer problems and figured that about 1 am is a good time to hit the sack. And I had other obligations today before finishing this post.
Before I continue, let me get something off my chest.
For those involved in this heinous act of violence, yes it is a tragedy. But the rest of us must look at what the accused gunman, 24 year-old James Holmes, as nothing but a criminal. Oh yes, probably it will come out a sociopath. But according to reports, Mr. Holmes is a damn smart one at that. But make no mistake. To start by referring to the event as a tragedy is to compare to a plane crash. Or an earthquake. Or a fire. Something that is unintentional, what we call in many cases an "Act of God". This Holmes fellow, he planned this crime. This is way to sophisticated to just be a case of someone just snapping one night. So please, this is a vicious crime and yes, it is evil. I will not refer to it as anything less.
One other thing is that reporting on these events has to not be sloppy and there should not be a damn agenda by so-called legacy media. Here, it is either referred to as the Leftywhore media.
Why am I upset?
Because of the "reporting" of Brian Ross of ABC news.
Mr. Ross went on the air with former Bill Clinton lackey George Stephanopolous to "report" that there is a James Holmes that is a member of a Colorado Tea Party group. Well, too bad that Mr. Ross was, to quote a fictional baseball announcer Harry Doyle from the movie Major League, "Just a little outside". In fact, waaay outside. The Mr. Holmes in question is a 52-year-old Hispanic man. And he is almost double the age of the actual suspect. Eventually ABC news was forced to issue a retraction.
And here is the statement from the ABC news website:
Editor's Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.
And it should have never gone down that road to begin with.
What if James Holmes could have been tied with the so-called Occupy movement? Does anyone thing that Mr. Ross would have gone of television breathlessly saying that Mr. Holmes was active in the Occupy movement?
Or what if it was not a White guy named James Holmes but a Middle-Eastern looking dude, oh I don't know, how about Mohammed Habbib? And what if based on that little, he could have been tied to Islamofacsist terror? Again, would Mr. Ross gone on the air with that information, tenuous at best.
HELL FRICKIN NO! And no on both counts. Because we have to be careful when it comes to the Occupy movement and we can not assume that anyone could do such a crime that is of Middle-Eastern origin.
When is the Leftywhore, legacy media going to not speculate but report facts as they are known? If you do not know for a fact that a suspect is part of any group, why the hell go on the air with such speculation with not one iota of fact to back it up?
There. This part of a rant is over.
There are so many layers to this story that this will go on for quite a long time.
There is the event itself.
How did this dude, Holmes, enter the particular theatre from an emergency exit?
Why were there very, very young children at this midnight premiere in the first place? A four-month old baby? A six-year old? What the hell kind of parents are this selfish that they would drag babies and very little kids to a midnight movie show?
Two aspects of the first-responders, the Aurora police.
One, the bravery that they took to quickly ascertain the situation and not wait for medical first responders. Many police officers gathered the wounded and took them to area hospitals. Who knows how many lives were saved because the police acted the way they did?
The second is the professional way that they showed absolute restraint in letting Mr. Holmes surrender to them.
What I am about to write maybe controversial, but it is what I am feeling about people that commit these evil acts and eventually get a stage to spout off their "reasons" for doing the act.
I do not think the overwhelming majority of Americans would have been upset if the police simply shot and killed Mr. Holmes right then and there. They could have said that he threatened them. Something. The only people that probably would be upset are the usual suspects. The ACLU crowd and some bloggers that value the life of scum over those that they kill for no reason.
I can only ask you to look at the case of the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Brevik. Since Norway has nothing in their criminal code for his act of terrorism, he may be confined to a mental institution for a grand total of 21 years. Now, more than likely he will be confined longer than the 21 year max because his freedom will be based on his ability to prove that he is not nuts. But I would not be all that surprised if he did get out in less than 21 years.
Another layer is how social media was used by the victims as they were evacuating the movie house. I for one would not be thinking do that, but some did. It gave a birds-eye view of terrorism.
And as always the outpouring of righteous grief and support to the victims, their families and the community that is Aurora, Colorado.
Both President Obama and the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney gave excellent remarks about the tragedy. And hey, on this no one better dump on President Obama for having a moment thinking about his own daughters, Malia and Sasha, and if they were in something horrific like that. He is a good dad and husband. Both men spoke from the heart. And that is what I want in situations like this. Though I pretty much loathe politicos giving comments in such situations, if they have to, both men did a great job.
There is a lot of time for the investigations, the obvious finger-pointing, the calls for gun control, the whole politics of this massacre. But for now, we must let these people bury their dead and the community of Aurora, Colorado grieve and begin the process of getting their shattered lives back together as much as possible.
Bloggers note.
I started this on early this morning. However I was having computer problems and figured that about 1 am is a good time to hit the sack. And I had other obligations today before finishing this post.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The Dear Leader Really Does Hate Business And The Private Sector
I have waited a while to comment on the remarks that the Dear Leader, President Obama, made in Roanoke, Virginia, last week concerning American business and his true disdain for the private sector and entrepreneurs in general.
Now I have purposely linked the official White House transcript regarding this issue because of the memes on the left is that his remarks are taken out of context.
So, lets examine the remarks that the Dear Leader, President Obama, made in reference to businessmen* and those that actually take the risks to create a strong, growing private-sector economy:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
I highlighted the money part of the remarks that has gotten the most attention this past week:
If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.
Really? A person and or a group of people that invested money in an endeavor that is
a) Successful.
b) Providing a product and or a service that people want.
c) Rolling with the inevitable ups and downs in an business endeavor.
d) Provided jobs in a community.
did not do that on their own? They did NOT build it?
I am sorry folks, but if that is not socialist clap-trap, I do not know what is.
In fact, the whole two-paragraph diatribe is a window on what the Dear Leader, President Obama, really thinks about those who are
a) Smart.
b) Work hard.
Yes, people who do the above are just terrible in the eyes and the mind of our Dear Leader, President Obama.
Sorry to inform the Dear Leader, President Obama, but many of the most successful people in this nation, well they never spent a day in college. Some barely graduated high school. Yet they did become successful. And not because they ran to the government for help and guidance.
One name that comes to mind is the late Steve Jobs. A man who revolutionized computers. He went to college, but never graduated. But what he learned would actually help him in developing the now famous Apple computer. The dude was smart and talented and it is why there is the kind of computer, phones and now tablets that are known and loved the world over.
Funny, I don't remember when Mr. Jobs went to the government, hat in hand, to help him develop the modern computer. Same for his competitor, Bill Gates, and MicroSoft. Oh yeah, Mr. Gates, well he did go to Harvard, but did not graduate either. I guess that he just had the lousy professors.
But there are those that did graduate college but changed the face of the United States.
How about Sam Walton, the founder of WalMart? This man single-handily changed the way that Americans, and now many around the world, shop. Oh, this dude and his company are Public Enemy Number One on the left-wing radar screen. Because of the fact that this eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll company does all that it can to. . .keep labor unions from organizing. Yet many an employee has started at the low end and become very successful within the company. And yeah, because of the same smarts and hard work that was the hallmark of Mr. Walton.
And one last example is a guy named George W. Romney.
Does that last name sound familiar?
Because Mr. Romney was the late father of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.
The late Mr. Romney came from very humble beginnings and that was a motivator in his ability to be a very successful businessman. He rescued American Motors in the late 1950s.
Oh, snaps!
Mr. Romney went to numerous colleges and universities and did not graduate. Again, must have been lousy professors.
Why am I focusing on the education of the aforementioned?
Because the Dear Leader, President Obama, seems to think that people can not make it for themselves in life without a crutch. Whether it is the crutch of government or a teacher or a mentor or the village, whatever.
The reality is that these people all were and are very smart in their own way. And they did something most do not. They took risk. And that is what the free market is.
A reality is that the overwhelming number of new business and new business ventures fail. Yet someone, somewhere does succeed. And it maybe small to some. But look at restaurants as a great example.
Hey, we all have to eat, right?
Yet how many times have you gone to a new restaurant in your town and loved it. Yet you go back six months later and it is gone. Why is that? I mean, you loved it and thought it was great. Yet for a host of reasons, the owners and investors just could not make it work.
But what if no one took these risks? What if no one tried to start a business? Hire some people? Make a profit? And, paid taxes?
Ahh, the taxes!
Yes, it is the taxes that pays fot the roads and bridges that the Dear Leader, President Obama, talked about in his diatribe. But if there is not a successful private-sector economy that broadens the tax base, the government at all levels will not have enough money to keep up the maintenance of the roads and bridges.
So, why does the Dear Leader, President Obama, not get it?
Because in his mind, those that are successful must be doing something wrong. Maybe even nefarious. It can not be that they are pretty damned smart, work hard and most important take the risk.
Oh, one last thought.
You realize that the reason we have the kind of roads that we do today is because of the wonderful invention called the automobile, right? And the vision of a guy named Henry Ford that developed the first car that most Americans could afford to buy. It was during the 1920s, that eeeeevvvvviiiiiillllll, greedy decade of unrivaled economic growth that people were flocking to buy the now famous Model T's. But the United States had to transition from the dirt road to the kind of concrete and tar roads we have today.
In other words, it was the private sector that made the government have to change. If the automobile had not become what it is today, we could still have a majority of dirt roads and be a Third-world nation.
But we are not.
And it is because of a lot of people that had vision, smarts, wherewithal and an amazing ability to take risk. And if successful, many, many people are employed and able to obtain these amazing products.
At one time, we had political leadership that welcomed that. Today, we have a political class that is trying to develop a frightening resentment of success.
That is what was so revealing about the Dear Leader, President Obama's comments. He made a case to resent success.
Now I have purposely linked the official White House transcript regarding this issue because of the memes on the left is that his remarks are taken out of context.
So, lets examine the remarks that the Dear Leader, President Obama, made in reference to businessmen* and those that actually take the risks to create a strong, growing private-sector economy:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
I highlighted the money part of the remarks that has gotten the most attention this past week:
If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.
Really? A person and or a group of people that invested money in an endeavor that is
a) Successful.
b) Providing a product and or a service that people want.
c) Rolling with the inevitable ups and downs in an business endeavor.
d) Provided jobs in a community.
did not do that on their own? They did NOT build it?
I am sorry folks, but if that is not socialist clap-trap, I do not know what is.
In fact, the whole two-paragraph diatribe is a window on what the Dear Leader, President Obama, really thinks about those who are
a) Smart.
b) Work hard.
Yes, people who do the above are just terrible in the eyes and the mind of our Dear Leader, President Obama.
Sorry to inform the Dear Leader, President Obama, but many of the most successful people in this nation, well they never spent a day in college. Some barely graduated high school. Yet they did become successful. And not because they ran to the government for help and guidance.
One name that comes to mind is the late Steve Jobs. A man who revolutionized computers. He went to college, but never graduated. But what he learned would actually help him in developing the now famous Apple computer. The dude was smart and talented and it is why there is the kind of computer, phones and now tablets that are known and loved the world over.
Funny, I don't remember when Mr. Jobs went to the government, hat in hand, to help him develop the modern computer. Same for his competitor, Bill Gates, and MicroSoft. Oh yeah, Mr. Gates, well he did go to Harvard, but did not graduate either. I guess that he just had the lousy professors.
But there are those that did graduate college but changed the face of the United States.
How about Sam Walton, the founder of WalMart? This man single-handily changed the way that Americans, and now many around the world, shop. Oh, this dude and his company are Public Enemy Number One on the left-wing radar screen. Because of the fact that this eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll company does all that it can to. . .keep labor unions from organizing. Yet many an employee has started at the low end and become very successful within the company. And yeah, because of the same smarts and hard work that was the hallmark of Mr. Walton.
And one last example is a guy named George W. Romney.
Does that last name sound familiar?
Because Mr. Romney was the late father of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.
The late Mr. Romney came from very humble beginnings and that was a motivator in his ability to be a very successful businessman. He rescued American Motors in the late 1950s.
Oh, snaps!
Mr. Romney went to numerous colleges and universities and did not graduate. Again, must have been lousy professors.
Why am I focusing on the education of the aforementioned?
Because the Dear Leader, President Obama, seems to think that people can not make it for themselves in life without a crutch. Whether it is the crutch of government or a teacher or a mentor or the village, whatever.
The reality is that these people all were and are very smart in their own way. And they did something most do not. They took risk. And that is what the free market is.
A reality is that the overwhelming number of new business and new business ventures fail. Yet someone, somewhere does succeed. And it maybe small to some. But look at restaurants as a great example.
Hey, we all have to eat, right?
Yet how many times have you gone to a new restaurant in your town and loved it. Yet you go back six months later and it is gone. Why is that? I mean, you loved it and thought it was great. Yet for a host of reasons, the owners and investors just could not make it work.
But what if no one took these risks? What if no one tried to start a business? Hire some people? Make a profit? And, paid taxes?
Ahh, the taxes!
Yes, it is the taxes that pays fot the roads and bridges that the Dear Leader, President Obama, talked about in his diatribe. But if there is not a successful private-sector economy that broadens the tax base, the government at all levels will not have enough money to keep up the maintenance of the roads and bridges.
So, why does the Dear Leader, President Obama, not get it?
Because in his mind, those that are successful must be doing something wrong. Maybe even nefarious. It can not be that they are pretty damned smart, work hard and most important take the risk.
Oh, one last thought.
You realize that the reason we have the kind of roads that we do today is because of the wonderful invention called the automobile, right? And the vision of a guy named Henry Ford that developed the first car that most Americans could afford to buy. It was during the 1920s, that eeeeevvvvviiiiiillllll, greedy decade of unrivaled economic growth that people were flocking to buy the now famous Model T's. But the United States had to transition from the dirt road to the kind of concrete and tar roads we have today.
In other words, it was the private sector that made the government have to change. If the automobile had not become what it is today, we could still have a majority of dirt roads and be a Third-world nation.
But we are not.
And it is because of a lot of people that had vision, smarts, wherewithal and an amazing ability to take risk. And if successful, many, many people are employed and able to obtain these amazing products.
At one time, we had political leadership that welcomed that. Today, we have a political class that is trying to develop a frightening resentment of success.
That is what was so revealing about the Dear Leader, President Obama's comments. He made a case to resent success.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
A Trip To The County Fair
As my vacation from the day job winds down, literally now in hours, I want to reflect on the last big thing Mrs. RVFTLC and I did on our staycation.
We took a trip to the Orange County fair here in So Cal.
I admit it here and now.
I am a fair junky.
Seriously, I love everything about a county fair. The sights, the hawkers, the agricultural stuff, the smells and the food.
Did I mention the food?
Well, what I really think makes a county fair is that it is pure Americana. I mean, while the hawkers are doing their thing to sell their wares in the products buildings, in another part of the fairgrounds is an actual farm in which fruits, veggies and herbs are grown. Still in another part is the carnival section chock full of rides to give anyone the vomitorium effect. And all kinds of food is interspersed throughout the fairgrounds. But my favorite is seeing the livestock animals.
I really am amazed that in the urban environment that is So Cal, there are still very active Future Farmers of America chapters at many OC high schools. And they were proudly showing off their animals. There are a lot of chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and turkeys. Now the sad part is many will not see a life beyond the fair. They will indeed be sold and slaughtered and meat products will be produced. That does not take away from this heartwarming photo of one of the FFA girls and one of her cows.
Oh yeah! You read it right! A Baby Ruth bar, stuffed in a fried jalapeno pepper and served in a bed of churros. And here is what that looks like:
We took a trip to the Orange County fair here in So Cal.
I admit it here and now.
I am a fair junky.
Seriously, I love everything about a county fair. The sights, the hawkers, the agricultural stuff, the smells and the food.
Did I mention the food?
I really am amazed that in the urban environment that is So Cal, there are still very active Future Farmers of America chapters at many OC high schools. And they were proudly showing off their animals. There are a lot of chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and turkeys. Now the sad part is many will not see a life beyond the fair. They will indeed be sold and slaughtered and meat products will be produced. That does not take away from this heartwarming photo of one of the FFA girls and one of her cows.
For many that visit the livestock area of the fair, it is the closest they will get to farm animals. And the FFA kids were so great at answering the many questions that the kids and adults had to ask.
The real highlight for Mrs. RVFTLC and I is the Great Alaskan Pig Races. It is a lot of fun to see piglets running around a track in a race. And the ending is really funny. Of course they are rewarded with food.
Here is what the pig race looks like as the pigs head for home.
And here are the pigs getting ready to eat at the trough. Priceless!
Another thing that I love about the fair is seeing all the products that are being hawked. After all, a fair is where the Sham-Wow! dude got his start. Of course one thing I do not like is to actually be talked to by the hawkers. Rule here is to not make direct eye contact. After a while, you can tell who is a hawker and who are the potential customers. I am really amazed at all the products that are in the product halls. Some are actually useful and some, well why?!
After some time in the product halls, and Mrs. RVFTLC finally giving up and sitting outside, I said that I will try the seemingly new strange food dish that the fair has to offer. And, here it is:
And it was absolutely delicious! The sweetness of the candy bar melting in the warm jalapeno pepper giving it that sweet and savory flavor. And the churros are a very nice touch! And if you think that your humble blogger did not eat it and is just writing smack, here it is:
Yup, I ate the whole thing!
The county fair is too me one of the last vestiges where Americans can gather, have a great time, take the family and not feel like there is going to be something that will make them nervous. It is a place to remember an America that is long forgotten. It is part of the reason that I like The Old Farmers Almanac and The Farmer's Almanac. They are like the fair. A reminder of an America long gone but should not be forgotten.
I am sure that those that attend a county fair, or a state fair, it means something different to each person. I find it a time to relax and not think about all the stuff that goes on in our day-to-day lives. It is just something so simplistic and yet fun at the same time.
And I really believe that every should make at least one trip to a county fair once in your life. It will probably not be the last time you will have gone!
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Is The Latest Bain Capital Attack On Mitt Romney The Left's Birther Moment?
OK, I start this with an admission. That I am NOT an expert about the latest kerfuffle in the 2012 presidential campaign between the Democrat, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the presumptive Republican, Mitt Romney.
What I believe this is about is whether or not Mr. Romney was really still in charge and actively involved in day-to-day affairs with Bain Capital when he left the company he helped found in 1999 to beginning his tenure as the CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics organizing committee. This recent article in the Boston Globe, not exactly a Mitt-friendly fish-wrap, seems to have set the left and even Team Dear Leader itself in a titter.
Now, we've got him! See, he WAS still with Bain Capital as it was outsourcing jobs! And he has lied about it too!
This is why Team Dear Leader has been hammering away at Mr. Romney about his time with Bain. That if he was just on a leave of absence, then he was still involved in someway with Bain when it was investing in companies that were "outsourcing" jobs that were in the United States to other nations.
The Globe article itself seems to have some contradictions about the extent of Mr. Romney's potential tenure at Bain beyond February 11, 1999. That is when he left Bain and became the full time SLCWO CEO.
And that is making what would seem to be something nefarious into more of a lot about nothing.
I think that this is going to prove to be the left wing version of the so-called Birther movement.
It started out, by sheer coinkidink, as part of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in 2007. And it continued long after she was defeated for the Democrat presidential nod in 2008 and up to this day. And even after the Dear Leader, President Obama finally got all the political mileage he thought he could get out of it, he produced the Hawai'ian birth certificate. And that is not enough. And it has strayed from a simple potential constitutional crisis-one HAS to be born in the United States to be eligible to be a president-to way too much minutia to be taken with any amount of seriousness.
That is where this potential is heading.
While there maybe some thing about the fact Mr. Romney was listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president”. until 2002, one has to read this to realize that it may be more a formality than he was really running the company and saving the Salt Lake Olympics from bankruptcy:
“Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999,” Bain Capital said in a statement Thursday. “Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period.”
The above is taken directly from The Globe story. And also in the story, the above was accurate according to FactCheck.org. Also, there are many supporters of the Dear Leader, President Obama, who are currently with Bain that say Mr. Romney did leave the company in 1999 and that it was a paperwork nightmare to cut all his ties to the company. The thrust of it is here at HotAir.com courtesy of Captain Ed Morrrissey.
A real scandal, especially a political one, usually is exacerbated by a cover up. Ask the late Richard Nixon. Or if you want a living former president, maybe William Jefferson Blythe Clinton will do.
But there does not seem to be as much a cover up as a very confusing set of circumstances. None indicate that Mr. Romney was someone sitting in the Bain Capital headquarters, growing a Snidely Whiplash moustache, twirling it around at the thought of outsourcing American jobs. Or really anything else connected with the day-to-day running of the company.
Thus I think that Team Dear Leader, courtesy of a ever so slight hit piece by The Boston Globe, is not on to much of anything.
That if it does continue, with no results, it starts to look like the left has found its Birther movement.
What I believe this is about is whether or not Mr. Romney was really still in charge and actively involved in day-to-day affairs with Bain Capital when he left the company he helped found in 1999 to beginning his tenure as the CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics organizing committee. This recent article in the Boston Globe, not exactly a Mitt-friendly fish-wrap, seems to have set the left and even Team Dear Leader itself in a titter.
Now, we've got him! See, he WAS still with Bain Capital as it was outsourcing jobs! And he has lied about it too!
This is why Team Dear Leader has been hammering away at Mr. Romney about his time with Bain. That if he was just on a leave of absence, then he was still involved in someway with Bain when it was investing in companies that were "outsourcing" jobs that were in the United States to other nations.
The Globe article itself seems to have some contradictions about the extent of Mr. Romney's potential tenure at Bain beyond February 11, 1999. That is when he left Bain and became the full time SLCWO CEO.
And that is making what would seem to be something nefarious into more of a lot about nothing.
I think that this is going to prove to be the left wing version of the so-called Birther movement.
It started out, by sheer coinkidink, as part of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in 2007. And it continued long after she was defeated for the Democrat presidential nod in 2008 and up to this day. And even after the Dear Leader, President Obama finally got all the political mileage he thought he could get out of it, he produced the Hawai'ian birth certificate. And that is not enough. And it has strayed from a simple potential constitutional crisis-one HAS to be born in the United States to be eligible to be a president-to way too much minutia to be taken with any amount of seriousness.
That is where this potential is heading.
While there maybe some thing about the fact Mr. Romney was listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president”. until 2002, one has to read this to realize that it may be more a formality than he was really running the company and saving the Salt Lake Olympics from bankruptcy:
“Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999,” Bain Capital said in a statement Thursday. “Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period.”
The above is taken directly from The Globe story. And also in the story, the above was accurate according to FactCheck.org. Also, there are many supporters of the Dear Leader, President Obama, who are currently with Bain that say Mr. Romney did leave the company in 1999 and that it was a paperwork nightmare to cut all his ties to the company. The thrust of it is here at HotAir.com courtesy of Captain Ed Morrrissey.
A real scandal, especially a political one, usually is exacerbated by a cover up. Ask the late Richard Nixon. Or if you want a living former president, maybe William Jefferson Blythe Clinton will do.
But there does not seem to be as much a cover up as a very confusing set of circumstances. None indicate that Mr. Romney was someone sitting in the Bain Capital headquarters, growing a Snidely Whiplash moustache, twirling it around at the thought of outsourcing American jobs. Or really anything else connected with the day-to-day running of the company.
Thus I think that Team Dear Leader, courtesy of a ever so slight hit piece by The Boston Globe, is not on to much of anything.
That if it does continue, with no results, it starts to look like the left has found its Birther movement.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Is Condi Rice Mitt's Veep Choice?
Well according to Matt Drudge, former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice is the front runner to be asked to be Mitt Romney's choice to be his vice-presidential running mate.
Before one thinks that this is the Gospel, I do advise one to read this from John Tabin over at The American Spectator.
Well, if you read it, whatever happened to Vice-President Frank Keating? Oh yeah, George W. Bush did not ask him to be his running mate in 2000.
Hey, how is Vice-President Evan Bayh doin'?
Oops! My bad! I'm sorry I mean Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden, the current vice-president.
Well, Mr. Drudge apparently had info that former Indiana Democrat Senator Bayh was the choice of then Sen. Messiah Barack for the veep spot.
Let me explain to ye what this is all about.
It is a trail balloon.
The Romney campaign is putting it out there to see how it would sell to the public.
Would Republicans be down with her as the veep? Would the base and conservative Republicans be OK with Condi as veep? How would she be looked at by independent voters? What about her non-experience in elected politics?
There is a lot more, but that is the top of the thoughts on this trial balloon.
Miss Rice has said repeatedly that she is not interested in the job and that in fact and indeed Team Romney should look someplace else.
Now, if Team Romney is looking at a potential Rice nomination as a panderama, it would succeed on two fronts.
One, the obvious is that she is a woman.
Two, she is Black.
As I believe the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton once said about electing her philanderin husband, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, with him you get two for the price of one.
See, there it is. A Black woman.
How dare the Democrats try to rip that one, right?!
Please, remember folks, we are talking about the Democrat party here. And the Democrat party led by Chicago thugs. They will do and say anything at this point, hoping something would stick.
There are actually more down and ups choosing Miss Rice as the veep.
I already mentioned one and that is her never running or winning elected office. Another is that she herself is not all clear on the so-called social issues. Although she claims to be pro-choice on abortion, it is not really clear that she is a radical pro-choicer or one that can articulate a clear position on the subject. And what about the whole panoply of domestic issues? What does she stand on Obamacare? Taxes?
See, I actually think that this would not be a good choice because while Miss Rice is great on foreign policy, she is almost a blank slate on everything else. Miss Rice could look like, well the Dear Leader, President Obama. Getting on the job training.
I think that it will not be Miss Rice, but Team Romney is putting it out there to gin-up interest in the campaign.
I still think that the dark horse is Rick Santorum. But another one that is a potential surprise to some would be the South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley. One thing to her advantage is that she ran in one of the nastiest Republican campaigns in 2010 and a just as nasty general election campaign which she won. Mrs. Haley is one that Mr. Romney endorsed for governor quickly in the 2012 election cycle and also gained the endorsement of Sarah Palin.
How is that for GOP unity?
So, maybe this time Drudge has it right and Mr. Romney will ask a reluctant Miss Rice to come to serve her nation one more time as potential vice-president. Or maybe it is the big summer trial balloon. I am on the side of the trial balloon.
Before one thinks that this is the Gospel, I do advise one to read this from John Tabin over at The American Spectator.
Well, if you read it, whatever happened to Vice-President Frank Keating? Oh yeah, George W. Bush did not ask him to be his running mate in 2000.
Hey, how is Vice-President Evan Bayh doin'?
Oops! My bad! I'm sorry I mean Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden, the current vice-president.
Well, Mr. Drudge apparently had info that former Indiana Democrat Senator Bayh was the choice of then Sen. Messiah Barack for the veep spot.
Let me explain to ye what this is all about.
It is a trail balloon.
The Romney campaign is putting it out there to see how it would sell to the public.
Would Republicans be down with her as the veep? Would the base and conservative Republicans be OK with Condi as veep? How would she be looked at by independent voters? What about her non-experience in elected politics?
There is a lot more, but that is the top of the thoughts on this trial balloon.
Miss Rice has said repeatedly that she is not interested in the job and that in fact and indeed Team Romney should look someplace else.
Now, if Team Romney is looking at a potential Rice nomination as a panderama, it would succeed on two fronts.
One, the obvious is that she is a woman.
Two, she is Black.
As I believe the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton once said about electing her philanderin husband, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, with him you get two for the price of one.
See, there it is. A Black woman.
How dare the Democrats try to rip that one, right?!
Please, remember folks, we are talking about the Democrat party here. And the Democrat party led by Chicago thugs. They will do and say anything at this point, hoping something would stick.
There are actually more down and ups choosing Miss Rice as the veep.
I already mentioned one and that is her never running or winning elected office. Another is that she herself is not all clear on the so-called social issues. Although she claims to be pro-choice on abortion, it is not really clear that she is a radical pro-choicer or one that can articulate a clear position on the subject. And what about the whole panoply of domestic issues? What does she stand on Obamacare? Taxes?
See, I actually think that this would not be a good choice because while Miss Rice is great on foreign policy, she is almost a blank slate on everything else. Miss Rice could look like, well the Dear Leader, President Obama. Getting on the job training.
I think that it will not be Miss Rice, but Team Romney is putting it out there to gin-up interest in the campaign.
I still think that the dark horse is Rick Santorum. But another one that is a potential surprise to some would be the South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley. One thing to her advantage is that she ran in one of the nastiest Republican campaigns in 2010 and a just as nasty general election campaign which she won. Mrs. Haley is one that Mr. Romney endorsed for governor quickly in the 2012 election cycle and also gained the endorsement of Sarah Palin.
How is that for GOP unity?
So, maybe this time Drudge has it right and Mr. Romney will ask a reluctant Miss Rice to come to serve her nation one more time as potential vice-president. Or maybe it is the big summer trial balloon. I am on the side of the trial balloon.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Is There An Anti-Parent Trend In The United States?
Well, if you asked me that question say five years ago, I would have said no. An emphatic no.
But ask me today and I think that there is a sometimes subtle, sometimes not subtle anti-parent attitude in the United States today.
What got me thinking about this was reading yesterday's Morning Jolt from Jim Geraghty of National Review. If you don't get this in your inbox every weekday, you should. And as an aisde, Mr. Geraghty is one of my favorites over at NR. I have quoted him many a time on this blog.
What Mr. Geraghty wrote about was taking his young boys over to a local Starbucks every Sunday morning and spending some quality time with the kids. Something that every father should do, no matter what their own marital situations.
But one Sunday, they went to a different Starbucks. Actually one near a playground in Alexandria, Virginia.
And it was not a good experience.
First is Mr. Geraghty's description of the crowd:
And the clientele was . . . different. You know the type: Beard. Skinny. Vintage t-shirt. Probably a piercing or two, definitely a tattoo. If they lived in New York, they would live in Brooklyn.
Ok, I would just change that to a Left Coast theme. If they lived here, it would probably be North Hollywood or West Hollywood. Or in downtown Los Angeles in one of the lofts. Basically, a hipster or a SWLPL type of vibe.
And then was Mr. Geraghty's description of the, well, disapproving looks from this hipster, SWLPL crowd:
I definitely got the feeling that our presence was disruptive to their perusal of the New York Times book-review section or their work on their screenplay. Nothing vocal, just regular disapproving looks in our direction. How dare a breeder like myself desecrate their temple of almost-urban cool.
And there was an awful word Mr. Geraghty wrote.
Breeder.
Breeder?! I had to read that a couple of times to realize that what Mr. Geraghty meant was that he was. . .a. . .dad! And a dad in the ol' fashioned way.
And what is wrong with that?
In my mind not a damn thing.
Being a step dad has been the most rewarding thing I have done other than getting married. Sure, I am not a breeder per se, but I have had the privilege to be a part of my stepson's life as much a father except for the "breeding" part.
Yet the thrust of the piece by Mr Geraghty is simple.
There is an anti-parent culture out there and it is getting louder and louder.
To stay with the coffee theme, there are three big chains here in So. Cal. They are the aforementioned Starbucks, then there is Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf and Peets. And I confess that I like them all. Even though all three are very, very liberal in their politics.
Which leads to a rule of your humble blogger. Try not to let politics get in the way of what you like. Laugh it off as a 'Well, hello?!' moment. Thus, until there is a Righty Coffee chain, I will continue to like the three I mentioned.
Back on point.
In the following order of the vibe and politics, Peets is the worst and Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf is the least of the hipster, SWLPL type of crowd. Which, oddly enough, means Starbucks is pretty middle-of-the-road.
I think that it is great that parents can take their children to a place like this. It is certainly better than the local pub. Or the race track. Or, well you get the point.
Are there some crappy parents? Yes, but most do not have children to be crappy parents. Not all parents let their kids run amok in inappropriate places. But come on, it is a coffee house. A chain coffee house. Hey, hipsters and SWLPLers, if you want to the full European coffee house vibe, there are a boatload near college campuses.
A lot of people like to emphasise the negative parents out there. Again, there are some. But there are many parents that are trying to be good. And teach their children how to behave. Right from wrong. All that kind of stuff.
I for one love seeing dads especially have a close relationship with their kids. It is sign of maturity. Of a dad giving of himself. I know that it is sexist to write what I am writing here, but it is true. It is expected that moms are naturally giving of themselves. But dads, that is another story.
And that is another point Mr. Geraghty raises.
How this hipster, SWLPL crowd is male dominated.
So true.
And they like their "freedom".
Freedom from what?
Their freedom is a myth.
What it really is is a self-absorption that they are too lacking to realize.
It is all about one's self. What? You want me to care about another human being? You know, beside bedding down a gal (or a guy-being a wee bit PC here!), actually a having a relationship? Having to give of my self to another person? WTF, man?!
When anyone gives of them self, that is true freedom.
I think that the problem here is that too many people have a misconception of freedom. And are just plain self-centered. And some of these people are. . .breeders. And they pass down their self-absorption to their offspring.
For me, I get how people feel about the modern parent. But I try to remember my parents and how they raised us. And yeah, it is pretty different from parenting in the 21st century.
But again, I do hate to admit, there is a trend of anti-parent and anti-parenting that is on the rise. And you can find some of it at the local coffee house.
But ask me today and I think that there is a sometimes subtle, sometimes not subtle anti-parent attitude in the United States today.
What got me thinking about this was reading yesterday's Morning Jolt from Jim Geraghty of National Review. If you don't get this in your inbox every weekday, you should. And as an aisde, Mr. Geraghty is one of my favorites over at NR. I have quoted him many a time on this blog.
What Mr. Geraghty wrote about was taking his young boys over to a local Starbucks every Sunday morning and spending some quality time with the kids. Something that every father should do, no matter what their own marital situations.
But one Sunday, they went to a different Starbucks. Actually one near a playground in Alexandria, Virginia.
And it was not a good experience.
First is Mr. Geraghty's description of the crowd:
And the clientele was . . . different. You know the type: Beard. Skinny. Vintage t-shirt. Probably a piercing or two, definitely a tattoo. If they lived in New York, they would live in Brooklyn.
And then was Mr. Geraghty's description of the, well, disapproving looks from this hipster, SWLPL crowd:
I definitely got the feeling that our presence was disruptive to their perusal of the New York Times book-review section or their work on their screenplay. Nothing vocal, just regular disapproving looks in our direction. How dare a breeder like myself desecrate their temple of almost-urban cool.
And there was an awful word Mr. Geraghty wrote.
Breeder.
Breeder?! I had to read that a couple of times to realize that what Mr. Geraghty meant was that he was. . .a. . .dad! And a dad in the ol' fashioned way.
And what is wrong with that?
In my mind not a damn thing.
Being a step dad has been the most rewarding thing I have done other than getting married. Sure, I am not a breeder per se, but I have had the privilege to be a part of my stepson's life as much a father except for the "breeding" part.
Yet the thrust of the piece by Mr Geraghty is simple.
There is an anti-parent culture out there and it is getting louder and louder.
To stay with the coffee theme, there are three big chains here in So. Cal. They are the aforementioned Starbucks, then there is Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf and Peets. And I confess that I like them all. Even though all three are very, very liberal in their politics.
Which leads to a rule of your humble blogger. Try not to let politics get in the way of what you like. Laugh it off as a 'Well, hello?!' moment. Thus, until there is a Righty Coffee chain, I will continue to like the three I mentioned.
Back on point.
In the following order of the vibe and politics, Peets is the worst and Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf is the least of the hipster, SWLPL type of crowd. Which, oddly enough, means Starbucks is pretty middle-of-the-road.
I think that it is great that parents can take their children to a place like this. It is certainly better than the local pub. Or the race track. Or, well you get the point.
Are there some crappy parents? Yes, but most do not have children to be crappy parents. Not all parents let their kids run amok in inappropriate places. But come on, it is a coffee house. A chain coffee house. Hey, hipsters and SWLPLers, if you want to the full European coffee house vibe, there are a boatload near college campuses.
A lot of people like to emphasise the negative parents out there. Again, there are some. But there are many parents that are trying to be good. And teach their children how to behave. Right from wrong. All that kind of stuff.
I for one love seeing dads especially have a close relationship with their kids. It is sign of maturity. Of a dad giving of himself. I know that it is sexist to write what I am writing here, but it is true. It is expected that moms are naturally giving of themselves. But dads, that is another story.
And that is another point Mr. Geraghty raises.
How this hipster, SWLPL crowd is male dominated.
So true.
And they like their "freedom".
Freedom from what?
Their freedom is a myth.
What it really is is a self-absorption that they are too lacking to realize.
It is all about one's self. What? You want me to care about another human being? You know, beside bedding down a gal (or a guy-being a wee bit PC here!), actually a having a relationship? Having to give of my self to another person? WTF, man?!
When anyone gives of them self, that is true freedom.
I think that the problem here is that too many people have a misconception of freedom. And are just plain self-centered. And some of these people are. . .breeders. And they pass down their self-absorption to their offspring.
For me, I get how people feel about the modern parent. But I try to remember my parents and how they raised us. And yeah, it is pretty different from parenting in the 21st century.
But again, I do hate to admit, there is a trend of anti-parent and anti-parenting that is on the rise. And you can find some of it at the local coffee house.
Wanna Know A BIG Difference Between McCain And Romney?
Well, my friends, there are a lot of differences between the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, Sen John "F--- You" McCain and the presumptive 2012 Republican standard-bearer, former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.
But for all the differences, it comes down to a word and a phrase.
The word is money. The phrase is that one wants to win, the other wanted to run a "respectful" campaign against then Sen. Messiah Barack.
Let's start from the phrase.
I'll put it blunter.
One is a winner and one a loser.
Back in 2008, when there was a lot of information out there about then Sen. Messiah Barack. From the relationship between then Sen. Messiah Barack and his former pastor, the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright. And his relationship with an obscure yet important local Chicago fringe left-wing group known as The New Party. A group that Sen. Messiah Barack thought so important that he actively sought it's support for his run for the Illinois state senate.
Yet there was Sen. "F--- You" McCain not using any of the obvious issues to his advantage. No, no, no. Sen. "F--- You" McCain kept saying that he wanted to run a "respectful" campaign and hoped that then Sen. Messiah Barack would do the same.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HEE! HEE! HEE! HEE! HEE! HO! HO! HO! HO! HO!
Sorry to have a loud laugh here, but we see how well that worked out.
Think that Gov. Romney is going to do the same thing?
Not a chance!
Gov. Romney is going to leave the "Rev." Wright saga alone lest allow the Obamiacs another chance to denigrate his being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
But on anything else, anything goes.
Recently, the White House advisor and Svengali, David Axelrod, was trying to rally the troops in Boston of all places. Well, there were a slew of Gov. Romney's supporters shouting down the White House tool. And while Mr. Axelrod did finish his comments, he was clearly rattled.
Now, if this had been 2008, Sen. "F--- You" McCain would have been condemning. . .his supporters and not supporting the thrust of their message. Gov. Romney could not care any less.
Thinking that somehow the other side is going to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules is a sign of a loser. Period.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain seemed to think that and lost. Gov. Romney does not worry about such things. He wants to win. And he understands that supporters get a little excitable and will do such things. Since that does happen to him from the Obamiacs. It is part of the game, folks.
And now the totally glaring difference is in the money chase.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain could not raise money to save his campaign. And it showed. And once he had informally wrapped up the Republican presidential nod in 2008, he made a fatal choice of taking federal matching funds. By doing so he completely limited any serious fundraising to keep up with the Obama Machine.
So, what about Gov. Romney? Is he going to take the federal matching funds?
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HO! HO! HO! HO! HO! HEE! HEE! HEE! HEE! HEE!
Once again, sorry for the laugh but are you kidding?
Once again, Gov. Romney understands the stakes and wants to win the presidency.
Here is a startling statistic, courtesy of The Race For 2012.
During the month of June, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his team fund raised $71,000,000. Team Romney? How about a cool $106,100,000? Yup, Team Romney whooped Team Dear Leader, President Obama, by $35,0000,000.
Let's compare the 2008 candidates to today.
Then Sen. Messiah Barack had raised $74,000,000. Pretty good for an unknown who somehow easily defeated the Democrat establishment favorite, Sen. Hilary Clinton.
And how much did Sen. "F--- You" McCain raise in the same period? A respectable $48,000,000.
But because he just did not get it that you have to raise money to win, Sen. "F--- You" McCain opted to accept $84,000,000 in public financing and restrictions that went with it. In the end, Sen. Messiah Barack raised a cool $778,642,962, or an average of $10.94 per vote. Sen. "F--- You" McCain? He ended up raising $383,913,834, or $5.97 a vote and lost the election by about nine and a half million votes nationwide.
Now, in Sen. "F--- You" McCain's minimal defense, he was trying to keep the White House in GOP hands with an economic meltdown and finally nearing the end of eight years of George W. Bush and his presidency.
But still, had he ran a better campaign, he could have very well won and be running for reelection.
Gov. Romney is showing Republicans a quite different candidate this cycle. One that realizes the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is taking this nation down the toilet. And that it will take money and will to defeat Team Dear Leader.
That is the difference between Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and Gov. Mitt Romney.
But for all the differences, it comes down to a word and a phrase.
The word is money. The phrase is that one wants to win, the other wanted to run a "respectful" campaign against then Sen. Messiah Barack.
Let's start from the phrase.
I'll put it blunter.
One is a winner and one a loser.
Back in 2008, when there was a lot of information out there about then Sen. Messiah Barack. From the relationship between then Sen. Messiah Barack and his former pastor, the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright. And his relationship with an obscure yet important local Chicago fringe left-wing group known as The New Party. A group that Sen. Messiah Barack thought so important that he actively sought it's support for his run for the Illinois state senate.
Yet there was Sen. "F--- You" McCain not using any of the obvious issues to his advantage. No, no, no. Sen. "F--- You" McCain kept saying that he wanted to run a "respectful" campaign and hoped that then Sen. Messiah Barack would do the same.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HEE! HEE! HEE! HEE! HEE! HO! HO! HO! HO! HO!
Sorry to have a loud laugh here, but we see how well that worked out.
Think that Gov. Romney is going to do the same thing?
Not a chance!
Gov. Romney is going to leave the "Rev." Wright saga alone lest allow the Obamiacs another chance to denigrate his being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
But on anything else, anything goes.
Recently, the White House advisor and Svengali, David Axelrod, was trying to rally the troops in Boston of all places. Well, there were a slew of Gov. Romney's supporters shouting down the White House tool. And while Mr. Axelrod did finish his comments, he was clearly rattled.
Now, if this had been 2008, Sen. "F--- You" McCain would have been condemning. . .his supporters and not supporting the thrust of their message. Gov. Romney could not care any less.
Thinking that somehow the other side is going to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules is a sign of a loser. Period.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain seemed to think that and lost. Gov. Romney does not worry about such things. He wants to win. And he understands that supporters get a little excitable and will do such things. Since that does happen to him from the Obamiacs. It is part of the game, folks.
And now the totally glaring difference is in the money chase.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain could not raise money to save his campaign. And it showed. And once he had informally wrapped up the Republican presidential nod in 2008, he made a fatal choice of taking federal matching funds. By doing so he completely limited any serious fundraising to keep up with the Obama Machine.
So, what about Gov. Romney? Is he going to take the federal matching funds?
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HO! HO! HO! HO! HO! HEE! HEE! HEE! HEE! HEE!
Once again, sorry for the laugh but are you kidding?
Once again, Gov. Romney understands the stakes and wants to win the presidency.
Here is a startling statistic, courtesy of The Race For 2012.
During the month of June, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his team fund raised $71,000,000. Team Romney? How about a cool $106,100,000? Yup, Team Romney whooped Team Dear Leader, President Obama, by $35,0000,000.
Let's compare the 2008 candidates to today.
Then Sen. Messiah Barack had raised $74,000,000. Pretty good for an unknown who somehow easily defeated the Democrat establishment favorite, Sen. Hilary Clinton.
And how much did Sen. "F--- You" McCain raise in the same period? A respectable $48,000,000.
But because he just did not get it that you have to raise money to win, Sen. "F--- You" McCain opted to accept $84,000,000 in public financing and restrictions that went with it. In the end, Sen. Messiah Barack raised a cool $778,642,962, or an average of $10.94 per vote. Sen. "F--- You" McCain? He ended up raising $383,913,834, or $5.97 a vote and lost the election by about nine and a half million votes nationwide.
Now, in Sen. "F--- You" McCain's minimal defense, he was trying to keep the White House in GOP hands with an economic meltdown and finally nearing the end of eight years of George W. Bush and his presidency.
But still, had he ran a better campaign, he could have very well won and be running for reelection.
Gov. Romney is showing Republicans a quite different candidate this cycle. One that realizes the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is taking this nation down the toilet. And that it will take money and will to defeat Team Dear Leader.
That is the difference between Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and Gov. Mitt Romney.
Why I Have Not Been Blogging Much
For some reason, this particular summer has me in the blog blahs!
I mean, we are in the middle of a historic presidential race and I have not been overly inclined to write about it.
There are all the cultural issues. Again, it just seems sort of like meh.
And there is all the foreign policy issues that should get this blogger pretty excited to blog about.
Meh.
I guess one reason is that the weather here on the Left coast is really great and is a big distraction to blogging.
But this week I am on vacation from the day job and I think I am getting the feeling back.
The blogging feeling.
So hopefully there will be many more ruminations of your humble blogger this week.
Maybe I am getting over the summer blogger blahs.
I mean, we are in the middle of a historic presidential race and I have not been overly inclined to write about it.
There are all the cultural issues. Again, it just seems sort of like meh.
And there is all the foreign policy issues that should get this blogger pretty excited to blog about.
Meh.
I guess one reason is that the weather here on the Left coast is really great and is a big distraction to blogging.
But this week I am on vacation from the day job and I think I am getting the feeling back.
The blogging feeling.
So hopefully there will be many more ruminations of your humble blogger this week.
Maybe I am getting over the summer blogger blahs.
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!
Happy Independence Day! It is the 236th Independence Day.
Sometimes I think that I can not add to what we celebrate this day.
And this is a time that I will not.
I will let those who toiled in a very, very hot summer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania colony in 1776 express the reason for this day.
I will let those who toiled in a very, very hot summer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania colony in 1776 express the reason for this day.
For I present the Declaration of Independence in its entirety along with all the signers.
These men nearly did make the ultimate sacrifice. Had they been captured by the British forces sent to quell our rebellion, they surely would have been executed.
And here is the Declaration of Independence:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)