What Liberals Can't Understand about Conservatives

Liberals believe in government.  Most of all, they believe in government run by - you guessed it - Liberals.  Because they're the smart ones, don't you see?  They're the ones who know what's best for everyone.

That's why Michele Obama can't grasp why schools across the nation are throwing her new school lunch menus in the trash along with tons of uneaten green vegetables the kids simply left on their plates. 

Michelle apparently believes that if all you give kids to eat at lunch is green vegetables and fresh fruits, they will eat them.  Sorry Michelle, but millions of us out in the hinterlands know that if you serve something to kids they don't like, they simply won't eat it.  They'll go hungry before they eat that broccoli, which is exactly what millions of kids did with Michelle's new school lunch menus.

If Michelle ever deigned to be involved in raising her own children, she might have learned that basic fact.  Even if the elitist Michelle talked with her nanny (or maybe it's "au pair" now), the lesson might have been learned second hand.  But I can practically guarantee that the girls dig in their heels if presented with the demand to "eat your vegetables".  We already know that a hen-pecked Barack likes to sneak out for a cheeseburger whenever Michelle's not around to stop him.

But Barack suffers from the same delusions.  All those mandates in the Affordable Care Act?  Barack calls them "The Right Thing to Do".  So what if they trample on the rights of American adults to make their own choices about their healthcare?  So what if they violate the rights of concience for individuals, executives, and even Doctors and Nurses to be allowed the flexibility to refuse to perform procedures or provide drugs with which they have a serious moral objection.

For Barack and Michelle, the only morality that matters is their own.  And we've discovered that the Obama's aren't Muslim, because they certainly don't promote Muslim values.  They aren't Christian either, because Christian values aren't just ignored, but ridiculed and called insensitive by the Obamas.

In the current healthcare funding debate, Democrats are saying, "People need healthcare.  The Affordable Care Act gives it to them.  That's what we need!".  Meanwhile, the law spends the country into bankruptcy and places all of the power into the hands of the federal government, which to the Democrats means a perpetual liberal bureaucracy.  They don't have a problem with that, because they're the smart people who need to be given paternalistic powers to take care of the people as they see fit.

If only those silly conservatives would get out of the way, Democrats really seem to believe they will bring a perfect society that is peaceful and fair.

I prefer freedom.

The Compromise for ObamaCare

There is a simple solution that would allow each side to proclaim victory and end the impasse.

Republicans want Obamacare repealed, for very good reasons.
Democrats stand on the walls with weapons drawn and shout, "Never!"

What if they agreed to this compromise?

Eliminate all the mandates, especially those aimed at both Employers and Individuals.  Remove the fine for folks who choose not to buy insurance in the exchanges.  Set tax law back to what it was before and let Employers self-insure or negotiate with insurance providers as they always have.

Keep the exchanges in place, where everybody can buy the health plan of their choice.  Pre-Existing conditions or not.  Subsidize those who can't afford their premiums if you must.  But let every qualified insurance company offer their products in the exchanges.  Make it a national exchange only.  But allow states to set up their own if they choose.

Cancel the IPAB and the Medical Devices tax.

Let the next election decide what changes will be made to the law after that.

Everybody wins.  Democrats will take credit for cutting out the most unpopular elements of the law, and Republicans can take credit for heading off a disaster.

If only.

Name-Calling

Let's see if I have this right.  Ted Cruz and his colleagues have been subject to an amazing array of derogatory attacks.  It's not all that surprising that most of them came from Democrats, but what  surprises me is how many of them came from fellow Republicans.  Let's see if I can remember most of them.

Wacko Birds
Hobbits
Terrorists
Hostage Takers
Anarchists
Grandstanders
Lemmings
Anti-Government
Extremists
Heartless
Anti-Women
Racist
Greedy
Elitist Snobs

Who want to

Starve Grandma
Starve Children
Take food off the table of the needy
Deny Healthcare to millions
Destroy the Planet
Enrich Oil Barons
Entangle us in Endless Foreign Wars


I'm sure I missed some.  I only wonder, if they're going to call you nasty names anyway, why not just stick up for your principles and let all this roll off your back?

Golly, Why Didn't You Tell Me This Before?

Today President Obama gave a speech which has been played incessantly over the radio all day.  He doesn't understand all the opposition to his healthcare law.  He tells us that beginning this week, we can all sign up for a great health plan that costs less than my monthly cellphone bill.  What's not to like?

Gee, is that all there is to Obamacare, really?  Gee, why have I been wasting so much time opposing the law?  Maybe I should have been supporting it all along.

Unbelievable.

Demographics

I recently noticed that polls are pretty consistently showing a 5 point lead for Terry McCauliffe over Ken Cuccinelli (pardon my spelling) for the Virginia governor's race.  I wondered, how is it that McCauliffe, the Clintonista well known for his dishonesty and corruption, could possibly be polling even close in a state like Virginia?

Then I saw an analysis someplace, I think maybe on CNBC.  The commentator said that while the Republican candidate is doing well among conservatives in general, he's losing big in the female vote.  Apparently, McCauliffe's campaign has been running highly effective ads suggesting his opponent is destined to implement Texas-style restrictions on abortion as soon as he's elected.  So all those millenial single women who work in and around the Federal government in DC but live in Virginia are planning to vote to keep their access to the final birth control solution intact.

I don't know what Ken Cuccinelli has planned in terms of abortion policy.  Naturally I wouldn't lose any sleep if all the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in Virginia closed tomorrow.  But the worst, most corrupt, most untrustworthy Democrat seems to have a chance to win nearly any political office if only he or she paints their Republican opponent as "anti-women".

Can it be that millenial women are really that promiscuous?  It seems to me if they're eschewing casual sex in anticipation of finding their future husbands, perhaps abortion wouldn't be such a huge single-issue priority for them.  Could it be true that young women in DC are easy?

Anyway, the stark division between conservative and liberal has a bold line.  It's now very easy to identify who belongs to each ideology.

Democrats own:
Young, single women
Welfare recipients to the working poor
Blacks
Lawyers
Celebrities
Homosexuals
City Dwellers
The Press/Media
Government workers of all kinds - teachers, professors, bureaucrats, etc

Republicans own:
Rural folk
Christians
Small Businesspeople
Working White Men from Middle Class to Upper-Middle Class
The Military

The Democrat constituency is outstripping the Republican constituency.  The next two election cycles are going to either cement the Democrats hold on power or break up the Obama regime and begin to roll back the clock on the extreme leftward shift pushed through over the last 5 years.

I'm not very hopeful.  Ted Cruz gave a courageous and cogent argument in his 21-hour speech on the Senate floor, but was dismissed by a group of collaborating Republicans, Democrats, the White House, and the news media.  None of whom chose to engage Cruz on the subject matter itself, but resorted to impugning Cruz' motives and denying any possibility that he may have approached his presentation out of principle.

When the Republican leadership collaborates with Democrats, all is lost for America.

September 11, 2021

The 20th anniversary of 9/11 arrived on a Saturday. 

At 8AM Eastern Time in the United States, a mushroom cloud blossomed over Tel Aviv.  A video of the explosion was played on all television networks and viewed by the majority of people across the planet.

The Alliance of Islamic States, led by Iran and including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, and Pakistan, demanded the immediate surrender of Israel within an hour of the attack.  The Iranian President announced that in return for peaceful surrender, all Jews that survived the attack will be given safe passage to the Western European country of their choice or America.

The AIS also reportedly sent a letter to Saudi Arabia demanding that the House of Saud leave the country in exile or they can expect the same fate.  Egypt was reportedly invited to join the AIS.

In the United States, President Hillary Clinton expressed "grave concern" over the unprovoked attack on Israel, and announced that she was dispatching her Secretary of State, Diane Feinstein and the UN Ambassador, Susan Rice to meet with the United Nations Security Council to discuss serious sanctions to be placed on the AIS in retaliation for the attack.  Russia and China immediately announced that they would support no sanctions on their allies in the AIS.

Less than a week later, Hillary Clinton addressed the country on television.  She announced that China has graciously agreed to assist the United States government in restoring order.  Chinese troops would partner with Federal militias to quell a growing right-wing rebellion.  No, not a rebellion in the middle east, but in the United States.  Clinton accused a coalition of Tea Party groups, Christians, and the NRA of mounting a rebellion aimed at overthrowing the United States Government.  Evidence was presented on CNN and MSNBC of people rioting in some cities, but several voices claimed that those were a combination of stock footage from old riots dating back the 1960's and some newer films produced by leftists out of Hollywood.  Clinton promised that these measures would be only temporary, and designed to proactively head off expected violence from this right-wing army of rebels.

Clinton stated that while she shared the outrage of many Americans over the unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel by the Alliance of Islamic States, that was no reason for anyone to react with violence against their government.  Most citizens have not observed any acts of right-wing violence against the government, although growing crowds were gathering across the country to loudly protest the failure of the Administration to protect America's friend, Israel, from nuclear annihilation.

On Sunday, September 12th, a Chinese company of soldiers, accompanied by dozens of federal militia members who were armed but not members of the United States Military, descended on thousands of churches across America during Sunday morning services.  Many churchgoers were wounded or killed, and an estimated 90 percent of priests, pastors, and ministers were executed.  Thousands of Christians that survived the raids were transported to internment camps that had been secretly been built over the past 12 months, apparently for this purpose.

The Chinese troops first invaded all of the National Guard armories across the nation and were given total control of permanent US military bases.  Outraged United States soldiers, sailors and airmen begain organizing themselves to repel the Chinese invaders.  Unfortunately, they were too late to protect the hundreds of thousands of Christians executed and imprisoned by the suprise Chinese Sunday raids.

Please, God, do not allow this vision of the future to come true.

When the Dust Settles

It is hard to predict where things will stand with the Affordable Care Act, or that terribly ironically named disaster we've come to call Obamacare.

There's no longer any argument that Obama was ignorant, wildly exaggerating, or outright lying for those years leading up to now.  No, if you like your insurance, you may not keep it.  No, if you like your doctor, you might have to find another one.  No, the ACA will not drive your insurance cost down by $2,500 per year; instead it will grow dramatically.

Even though the financial outcomes were predictable from day one and are no surprise to anyone with a functioning brain, those were never the source of my major objections.

The ACA puts all medical decision-making into the hands of Kathleen Sebelius and a newly formed Independent Payment Advisory Board.  Democrats screamed bloody murder when Sarah Palin called that a "Death Panel".  But now we know that this board will make decisions on what procedures and treatments will be allowed by the Federal Government, which I think strongly suggests that the outcome of this unaccountable board of Obama cronies actually may soon prove to be indeed a Death Panel.

You see, that and so many other power-grabbing mandates in the act are what earned my strong objection to the ACA.  In effect, the government has stepped in between every physician and patient, making itself the final arbiter of our care.  Along the way, they will violate the privacy of every citizen by collecting deeply personal data about our habits, preferences, and vices.  Which seems to indicate that they are prepared to make value judgements regarding that information.  If that's the case, then who's to say they won't begin to say things like,

"Well, you smoked tobacco for 20 years, therefore you may not undergo that life-saving cardiac bypass."

"I see here that you're 60 pounds overweight.  Your overeating and unsufficient exercise have led to a stroke, therefore we will not authorize treatment."

Or what if it comes to this?

"We see here that you're an activist member of the Tea Party.  Since you're chosen to align yourself with this anti-government terrorist group, we will not support any medical attention now or in the future."

Think it won't come to that?  Given the IRS revelations of the last several months, I wouldn't put it past them.  I'll bet there are thousands of Lois Lerners in the HHS bureaucracy even now.

Worst of all is the anti-Christian mandate.  The government has essentially gone to Catholics throughout the country, whether they are health providers, college administrators, managers of charitable organizations, or even private business owners, and said, "You must provide free birth control drugs to all of your employees".

These are people who regard most artificial contraceptives as harmful.  Especially the abortifacient drugs, which will actually kill the fetus before it can plant itself in the uterus.  Despite Sebelius' claims to the contrary, that is a drug that kills a fetus, which by definition is an abortifacient.

So the Obama government has passed a law that effectively requires every citizen that owns or operates a business or charity in America to actively participate in bringing about the death of children while risking the health of women.  A positive link has already been proven between contraceptive drugs and breast cancer in women, so the government is also forcing Americans to give women who work for them drugs that significantly increase the probability they will contract breast cancer.

This is a fascist law from a fascist government.  America must not comply like sheep to this horrific tyranny.  Senators who won't support the House's efforts to overturn this horrible law are complicit in the destruction of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

There remains only a small glimmer of hope that the cadre of principled senators, led by Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, can overcome the fascist collaborators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and free us all from this tyranny.

Honesty About Social Security

If I were talking about this in a speech as a candidate for office, I suppose it would help guarantee my loss.  Because apparently in modern America, telling the truth about Social Security just isn't done.  Remember when George W Bush first took office and proposed a modest change that would allow folks to elect to control the investment of their own Social Security contributions?  Democrats screamed bloody murder, and the proposal faded away.

Let's start with what Social Security actually is, and always has been.  A welfare program for seniors.  It was sold in an outrageously fraudulent way.  My own parents and grandparents believed the lie, and any attempt to inform them that they're not receiving their own money back in retirement that they paid in during their working lives, but simply getting the money our generation is paying in taxes.

For the most part, my parents and grandparents were proud people.  If they actually understood that their monthly Social Security checks were in truth a simple welfare scheme, I believe some of them might have sent their checks back.

Just think about it for a minute (please!).  Look at your lifetime earnings, and calculate what you've paid into Social Security over the course of your working life.  Compound that over 35 to 40 years at a modest annual percentage rate of return at 5 percent, and find out how much money you would have had at retirement if only the government wasn't squandering it.

Most of us who work for a living will have plenty of money for a comfortable retirement after we turn 65, and would never need anything from the government.  Those folks who didn't work for a living won't have anything to use in retirement.  But seriously, isn't that a different problem?

Let's consider Democrat arguments against privatizing retirement accounts.

Greedy bankers will take advantage of Americans to make obscene profits on our retirement accounts.  Well, no doubt some will try.  But if their fees get too high, won't they be guilty of fraud?  Aren't there already protections for consumers against predatory banking practices?

Too many irresponsible people will choose bad investments or blow all their retirement money in their first year.  So?  Once again, if a retiree becomes destitute due to their own bad decisions, isn't that a different problem?  I struggle to understand why that justifies the government confiscation and waste of 15 percent of the earnings of every single citizen.

What about additional benefits like Disability and Minor Dependents benefits received upon the death of the family's wage earner?  Indeed.  Don't you think bankers and insurance agents will design products for people's retirement investment money that could provide exactly those protections?

I do wish I'd saved 15 percent of my earnings every year since 1980.  My retirement accounts would be much healthier today had I done so.  In fact, I probably would have enough in those accounts that I could realistically retire early.  Unfortunately the government confiscated and wasted all that money and there's nothing to show for any of it today.

Privatization will never happen, not because it's a great idea.  But because Democrats will successfully instill so much fear in most Americans that they will oppose it without really understanding what they're opposing.

Who's Ruining Their Party?

Kirsten Powers is well known by anybody who watches Fox News, as she's often invited in to represent the Liberal perspective when they're discussing issues.  I don't know if anyone has noticed, but that sort of thing happens on MSNBC somewhere between rarely and never.  When it does happen on the radical left-wing channel, the brave conservative who shows up is chopped up and incinerated.

Kirsten wrote an article yesterday titled "The GOP is Threatening Murder-Suicide with New Shutdown Warnings".

Her article represents the elitist attitude that Republicans never approach an issue from a point of principle.  Republicans are merely political animals whose mission is to obstruct Democratic objectives at every turn.  Kristen notes that Obamacare is the president's capstone achievement, so that must be the reason Republicans want to destroy it. 

Not that it's disastrously expensive, patently unfair, laden with unnecessary and silly regulations, is already responsible for smothering economic recovery, and most of all fails to deliver on nearly all of it's trumpeted objectives.

In Kirsten's world, those crazy right-wing Christians, especially Catholics, object to contraceptive mandates because they're stuck in the 1500's.  Who could possibly object to helping women prevent pregnancy?  I suppose Kristen's perspective about children is that they're a disease that must be prevented rather than a blessing representing a bright future for America.

She would lecture us that we have to stop these negative attitudes and this unfounded mistrust of the Federal government.  Her Democrat friends in DC are the smartest people she knows, and they know what's best for all of us ordinary people who live out there in flyover country.  We should therefore acquiesce to the enlightened guidance of Kirsten and all of her liberal friends, who went to universities like Harvard and Yale and therefore know a lot more about what it means to be a citizen of the world.

Kirsten has no concerns about government mandates.  Kathleen Sebelius should have the power to design the health insurance plans for the insurers and dicate to evey one of them what should and should not be covered, how the premiums are to be priced, and how much the Doctors and other providers will be allowed in compensation.  The IPAB isn't a Death Panel, because it's probably going to be made up of caring liberals who think just like Kirsten; they're smart people who will make the wisest decisions possible about our care.  It's perfectly OK that Sebelius chooses which insurance companies will be permitted to participate in the Exchanges, because if she wasn't vetting them some evil profit-driven companies might slip through.

Kirsten happily overlooks the fact that hundreds of Obama cronies, both business and union entities, have been granted waivers from having to implement the conditions of Obamacare.  Even Congress has been given special dispensation from King Barack.

So Kirsten believes that Obamacare is a free-market solution to healthcare that is more "fair".  I struggle to understand how a small hand-picked cadre of companies providing insurance products designed and priced by the government is a free-market solution.  And over my lifetime I have learned that the definition of "fair" depends on the individual - if it benefits me, then it's "fair";  if it benefits someone else at my expense, it's not "fair".  Guess what, Kirsten:  Obamacare is NOT fair.

Will this initiative be suicide for the GOP?  We'll see, but probably not.  But if a government shutdown ensues, which party will be the one committing suicide?  Why wouldn't it be the Democrats, who rather than allowing a temporary delay to allow the Obamacare exchanges to be fully developed and the multitude of kinks in the system ironed out, insisted on implementing it in full force because it wasn't ready for primetime?

The media is determined to hammer the message home to all Americans that the GOP caused a government shutdown over some petty political desire to stop a signature Obama program.  All the while, those who know the truth know that Obamacare is the most unwieldy, costly, corrupt, and disastrous law to be passed in generations.  It deserves to be delayed at a minimum, or better yet repealed.

Kirsten has illustrated our modern problem for us.  She will never understand the mind of a conservative.  I know she just wants us to all go away so her party can have their way forever.  Sorry Kirsten, we're not ready to surrender just yet.

Cowards in Washington

Republicans have the people behind them.

Yet they tremble in fear and refuse to support initiatives with their somewhat bolder colleagues to defund that monstrosity called "ObamaCare".  The unconstitutional law should have been repealed by the Supreme Court, but a cowardly John Roberts kept it alive by simultaneously declaring it unconstitutional and rewriting it in a way he could declare it constitutional.  I wonder if there is any precedent of the court rewriting a law in order to repair its unconstitutional provisions - I always thought the process was to declare it unconstitutional and send it back to congress to try again.  Unfortunately, Roberts felt huge pressure from the Democrats and the White House to roll over on the case.

So the polling is clear, and has been clear for some time.  American's don't like the idea of the Federal Government telling them what insurance to buy, charge us more for it, then dictate what's covered and not covered.  It sounds tyrannical.  Sarah Palin was vilified for introducing the term "death panels" to describe the national healthcare council, but has been proven right.  Whether the council turns into an egregious "death panel" for millions of Americans under ObamaCare remains to be seen, but they certainly have been granted that power.

Liberals like provisions that do away with insurance practices that deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions.  They supposedly like the provision that lets parents keep their children on their plan until age 26, although that seems to me more of an indictment of the Obama Economy than a positive outcome.

So most states had the pre-existing problem solved by offering various high-risk pools that their citizens could join.  Seniors are already covered under Medicare.  The poor are already covered by Medicaid.  So it seems that the biggest problem has been that middle-income folks who work for companies that don't offer benefits or are self-employed were not buying private insurance because they viewed the policies as family budget-busters.

So now the Federal Government steps in and destroys all of the state high-risk pools with a one-size-fits-all plan.  One that forces those people who had previously chosen to remain uninsured to buy insurance at rates from 25 to 100 percent higher than what they would have paid if they'd bought private insurance previously.

People are also now being forced to buy insurance that is mandated to cover contraception at 100 percent.  Even if they're committed Catholics who believe contraception is immoral, their premiums will certainly be used to pay for other young women's contraceptives.  Businesses are being forced to also provide health insurance plans to their employees that cover contraception at 100 percent.  They're in court still, trying to overturn that particular mandate.

Perhaps the best proof the law is bad and needs to be repealed is the fact that Congress has successfully exempted themselves.  The ruling class has decided that the laws they pass only apply to their subjects, yet they deserve special treatment.

All I ask of congress is that they grow a pair.  You can't win the battle if you don't show up on the field.  If you fight hard and still lose, at least you gave it your all.  Your irrational fear of the media twisting your motives into a desire to "shut down government" is no excuse.  They'll do what they do.  Even John Roberts pulled that one on Fox News Sunday this weekend, so even the so-called conservative cable news channel proved to be toeing the liberal line on the GOP initiatives to stop Obamacare from being fully implemented.

So talk directly to your constituents and act according to your principles.  If you lose your seat next year, so be it.  But if your constituents come to understand the principle involved, they won't send you home.  If you chicken out from this fight, they might choose someone else next year.

Trying to Understand

As a conservative in both personal and political philosophy, I have always sought to understand the liberal mind.  Whenever there's an issue that pits the conservative point of view against the liberal point of view, I admit that I struggle to understand how anybody could take the left side of the argument.

Since I finally signed up on facebook this year, I've started to notice trends in the postings of liberal facebook "friends".  Their posts are remarkably different from those of my conservative or undertermined "friends".

Scrolling through facebook, I've noticed the liberal postings stick out like a sore thumb.  They're not overtly political, at least most of the time.  But they do reflect a completely different worldview, at least from mine.  They're terribly trite and naive.  Cute animal pictures and YouTube videos.  Posters with trite messages about loving everyone and getting along and dedicating ourselves to saving the planet.

It may not be the same as if I could do an in-depth study, but it does sort of lead me to a few generalized conclusions.

The average liberal is an idealistic thinker, who believes everyone should just try to understand each other and respect our differences.

The ordinary liberal is either an atheist or is not associated with a Christian tradition.  They seem to fall somewhere between suspicious and hostile in their attitudes toward Christianity and Christians, which for me calls into question whether they might be a little hypocritical in their formost stated philosophy.  Perhaps we can amend that idea that we should respect each other's differences to add the exception when those differences involve Christians.

The liberal holds firmly onto a belief that everyone has a "right" to quality healthcare.  They don't mind at all if that means that everyone else has to pay double for theirs.  I suspect if a liberal's health insurance bill doubles in January, they'll blame it on everything else (mainly the greedy insurance companies) before even considering the true cause.

I'm also noticing that the average liberal gets riled if the subject is raised about the waste and fraud epidemic in federal assistance programs, especially Food Stamps and Disability.  In their minds, it might be unfortunate that people might be fraudulently accessing those benefits, but it can never reach a level to justify reform.  They get highly fearful that any reform by the evil Republicans would result in the truly needy losing their benefits, therefore no changes to the programs are ever justified.

It seems that a great analogy is to a family budget.  Let's say the husband works hard to create and maintain a family budget, but his wife can't help herself and busts the budget with her overspending month after month. (Don't call me sexist, please - consider the roles reversed between husband and wife if you prefer)

So the couple has a conversation after a particulary egregious month of overspending.

"You overspent the budget by $1,000 this month", says the husband.  "We can't go on this way, because all it does is rack up debt and make it harder for us to provide the things our family needs!"

"I promise you, every penny was spent on things we needed", says the wife.

It fits perfectly with how Democrat governance differs from Conservative governance.  Notice that I used the word "Conservative" rather than "Republican", because we've learned that the two are not the same.  Most conservatives are republicans, but most republicans are not conservative.

At least Democrats have no such divisions.  In the Democratic Party, anyone who opposes Obamacare, tax and minimum wage increases, Gay Marriage, Abortion, and out-of-control deficit spending is not welcome.

Voter Suppression?

Since Colorado recalled two State Senators earlier this week, there has been lots of noise from the Left charging "voter suppression".  That made me curious, so I did a bit of web surfing to find related stories.

The only reasonable explanation I could find was an article written by someone on the Left who tried to accuse the Colorado Secretary of State of attempting to block registered voters from casting their vote in the recall election.  That led me to read about the challenge brought by Democrats, when I discovered that the argument was about whether or not each county should send ballots to registered voters who didn't show up for last year's election.  Colorado calls them "inactive voters", therefore they strip them from the mailing list.

This is what constitutes voter suppression to the radical Left?  Suppose I add another twist to the story and reveal that they got a judge to tell Colorado they should go ahead and allow the ballots to be mailed to those voters.  The story I read said that's exactly what happened, as several counties went ahead and sent them out. 

So where's the suppression exactly?  Did anybody tell a single eligible voter that they won't be allowed to vote?  No.  Is Angela Giron a sore loser, or does she have proof that her supporters were not allowed to cast their ballots?  Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the pathological flamethrowing liar from the Democratic party, says voters were denied their rights in Colorado, and we should believe her precisely because ...?

Google returns a bunch of stories on the subject that suggest the Democrats tried to bus in a large number of out-of-state folks to cast ballots for their recalled senators but were rebuffed.  If the anger being expressed is over illegal voters being suppressed, unless we belong to the end-justifies-the-means wing of the Democratic party, exactly why would we have a problem with the law being enforced?

I recall the days when Indiana's Voter ID law was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was upheld, by the way.  The Democratic Party trotted out a woman who claimed it was too much of a burden for her to get a photo ID, therefore she felt her right to vote was being suppressed.  Some intrepid reporter checked on who the woman was, and it turned out she was ineligible to vote in Indiana anyway.

Who but the most corrupt or naive American believes this overwrought drivel about Republicans conspiring to keep Democrats from voting?  I have yet to see a single story of actual voter suppression (of a Democratic voter).  Of course, there are lots of stories out there about attempted suppression of Republican voters?  Does anyone really believe that there's not a single Republican within the city limits of Cleveland and Philadelphia? 

Government of, by, and for the ignorant and stupid, I suppose.

When Results Don't Match Rhetoric

This might be the most fascinating result of nearly 6 years of a liberal government.  Their promises to make the distribution of wealth "fair" are proving to have been empty.  There's an interesting article today that suggests the mythical 1 percenters have done better under Obama than since the 1020's.

Don't just let the headline influence your opinions on the subject - there's a lot to be found in the details that might wreck anyone's predetermined liberal or conservative philosophies. 

Obama's policies have absolutely tossed a soaking-wet blanket over the economy.  Massive new regulations have stifled business growth and investment.  Obamacare has practically destroyed the economy, adding massive new bureaucracies and their related costs to an already overburdened healthcare system.  Record numbers of Americans are receiving food stamps, disability, and other welfare benefits from the government.  The baby boom generation is retiring, and bankrupting a Medicare and Social Security system that never considered the massive numbers of citizens who would rely on them someday.

If Obama had done nothing, some think the economy would have rebounded naturally.  That's a hard thing to prove.  I think Obama's trillion-dollar "Stimulus" bill probably did more damage to recovery than the very marginal benefit it provided, which was nearly all funneled to Obama's cronies.

We see Barack and Michelle living like King and Queen, spending lavishly on command performances at the White House and hundred-million-dollar vacation trips.  The exude an attitude that some how it's their turn to enjoy the lifestyle of the rich and famous.  I pick up on a sort of imperious arrogance from the Obamas which belies their "of the people" political message.

Contrary to Obama's rhetoric, restrictive rules telling average folks what cars they can drive, what medical procedures and prescriptions they are permitted, and even what their kids are allowed to eat in their school lunches hardly help them prosper.  Good jobs are what help people prosper.

Obama's definition of a good job is a government job.  A union member working for the government earns the president's generosity, while the average Joe working for a small business out in flyover country doesn't deserve a thought.  That average Joe is probably clinging to his bible and his gun, as Obama himself famously proclaimed.  Joe somehow deserves to pay double to heat his home and must be forced out of his family minivan and onto some new government-sponsored train system.  Joe will be forced to stop eating at McDonald's and be directed to have kale and arugula for lunch, under Michelle's enforced menu.

The horrible president Obama has surpassed for inept governance, Jimmy Carter, was fortunately turned out of office after a single term.  In about two years, Ronald Reagan turned the dying Carter economy into a boom never seen before by simply rolling back unnecessary regulations and freeing business to invest and innovate.  All the while Democrats dripped a venomous charge calling Reagan's economic program "Trickle-Down Economics".

There are many folks who lived through the same times, but we seem to be evenly split on the lessons we learned (or didn't learn) from the Carter years and repeated in the Obama years.  I guess my contemporaries on the left side of the political spectrum simply chose to wear a blindfold to support their Messianic president.

Evaluating Talk Radio

I drive a lot.  Lately I've hardly ever been on an airplane, but it's nothing for me to log 500 to 1,000 highway miles in a week.  So I need to listen to something that is interesting enough to keep me awake.  Most music radio stations don't meet that requirement, although it's pretty common for me to play country music during a trip.

Mostly I listen to talk radio.  I've heard most of the best-known talkers, so I thought I'd do a bit of an evaluation of the medium.

Local radio talkers include Greg Garrison, Larry Downes, Dana Loesch, the Chicks on the Right, to name a few.  Garrison is probably my favorite among the local talent.  He has gotten himself in trouble in the past with some hot rhetoric, but generally seems like a pretty decent guy.  He's an Indianapolis lawyer whose claim to fame was earned when he served as the prosecuting attorney in the Mike Tyson rape trial.

Garrison is still practicing law, and he seems to take a lot of vacation time.  So when I tune into his weekday morning show it seems there's a pretty good chance there's somebody filling in for him.  Some of his fill-in hosts are less than compelling, to be charitable.

Larry Downes and the Chicks are brand new.  Larry seems like a nice guy, but my initial take on him is that he's probably about center-right on the spectrum.  I think Larry's maybe economically conservative, but socially may lean more to the liberal side.  That may not be correct, because I haven't heard nearly enough of him to pin him down for certain.

The Chicks are kind of a fun alternative that are new to the medium.  They apparently are just a couple of relatively young women who happen to lean conservative and started a blog together a couple of years ago.  They got their first radio show on the weekends in Indy, and just last week signed on for a daily show.  They like to talk a lot about cultural stories, and come across sort of like a couple of Valley Girls who happen to also be intelligent.

Dana Loesch is a highly attractive pundit who used to represent a conservative viewpoint on CNN.  She seems to have disappeared from CNN and I've now seen her pop up a couple of times on Fox News.  She has a daily show out of her hometown of St. Louis, and WIBC in Indy picks up an hour of that show.  She's certainly passionate, and sometimes funny.

Among the national group of talkers, Rush Limbaugh is king.  My late liberal father even admitted to enjoying Rush, even though he liked to claim that most of Rush's points were bunk.  On the occasions where I talked about political issues with my Dad, he often tried to shut down my points by accusing me of getting them from Rush.  Most of the time that wasn't true.

Rush is able to reach such a huge audience because he's bombastic but entertaining.  He is indeed mostly fun to listen to, which seems to explain his broad audience of plenty of conservatives and liberals.  Most of those libs who attack Rush as racist and extreme cite internet myths that anyone who has listened to Rush more than a few times know are far from true.

Although I think I'd like Hannity personally, I am not his biggest fan on the radio.  He is extremely repetitive, making the same points over and over and over ....  On the other hand, I've seen some excellent episodes of his Fox News show, especially those in which he talks to folks gathering in the studio.  His lead-in with the country song about "We'll put a boot in your a$$" has really gotten old.

Michael Savage is sort of a strange dude from San Francisco.  My impression of Savage is that he's a very lonely man who loves his dog and fancies himself a gourmand.  He spends a lot of time trashing his fellow conservative talkers, which is something that puzzles me.  I can't tell if it is out of jealousy or he thinks it's a legitimate strategy for stealing listeners or if it's some other thing.  I can't say I'm a fan.

Laura Ingraham is one I actually like very much.  She's smart, witty, and funny.  Her foes like to promote the message that she's a world-class b!%@&.  I can't say if she is or not in private, but I do wonder why she never married.

Glenn Beck is very entertaining as well, and he seems to be building his own empire on the internet and alternative media.  He has a tendency to take a story that has a basis in fact, then spin his interpretation of the story to paint a dire warning.  Sometimes he legitimately scares me.  Other times I just toss him off as taking it way too far.  Recently he was building up some story about terrorist support for the Tsarnaev brothers in the Boston bombing.  He promised his story would blow the lid off the government cover-up he was sure was happening to hide their direct relationship with a terrorist group.  But somehow the story quietly faded and never blew the cover off anything.  On the other hand, he can be credited with exposing avowed communists in the Obama administration, which made him one of the most hated conservative talkers.

Mark Levin is also a very intelligent talker.  He yells a lot.  But his focus on the Constitution is valuable, and his insights on constitutional law make me wonder if he wouldn't be a great Supreme Court justice.  Then again, I'm not sure he could restrain himself enough to maintain the decorum of that place.  I'd be afraid he might punch out Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Elena Kagan.

There are lots of other talkers out there in radio land, but the rest of them I have listened to very little.  Certainly Rush is king, and is absolutely the pioneer of the medium.  Thinking about it a certain way, I find it fascinating that I'd probably rather hang out with Hannity, but prefer to listen to Rush's show.  I'd certainly love to meet every one of them.

I Don't Get It

Honestly, I've been trying to understand.  But this one is simply beyond me.

Barack Obama campaigned for President as the Anti-Bush.  He guaranteed that had he been in congress during the Iraq war authorization, he would have voted against it.  He campaigned as the "smart" one who could solve international conflict through the simple force of his personality.  He promised to "talk" to our enemies, as if somehow that would make them love us.

Now he has mounted a new campaign.  Not to win an election, but to win American support for tossing a few missiles into Syria to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons in that country's civil war.  He and John Kerry and the staffers he's sent out to spread the word emphasize that the attack will be extremely limited, of short duration, and is not aimed at removing Assad.

The only part I understand is that Obama set the "red line" a year ago, promising action if Assad used chemical weapons.  Assad promptly did so, almost as if he was flipping off Obama more than deploying the weapons to put down the rebellion. 

OK, so Obama wants to toss a few missiles into Syria so he can say he did something.

But as far as I can tell, his attack will serve no real purpose beyond proving that Obama meant what he said.

What is the bigger objective?  It certainly won't make any impact on turning the tables on Assad in the civil war.  Even if it modestly shifts the momentum, it appears that he'll be helping Islamic Terrorists in the opposition to Assad, which doesn't sound like a desirable outcome.  So what is Obama trying to accomplish?

There are several theories being floated:

It's about warning Iran and proving to the Mullahs there that they should fear the United States.  No, I don't think that's it - I think this whole exercise is doing more to encourage the Iranians to press forward with their nuclear program.

He is privately supporting the Muslim Terrorists in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Quaeda, and many other splinter groups.  Certainly he has been unwilling to carry forward Bush's war on terrorism, and he even banned the phrase (War on Terror).  But is he really so anti-American that he supports the Islamic Jihad against America and Israel?  Maybe, but I certainly hope not.

It is a deliberate attempt to distract the country from all his scandals and the failing implementation of Obamacare.  That one makes sense, but it seems like a pretty extreme way to change the subject.

There's a rumor that the Saudi's have offered to fund the whole thing, essentially hiring Obama to deploy American forces on their behalf as soldiers of fortune.  Only rather than the soldiers getting the fortune, it would be Obama getting paid.  It sounds outrageous, but these days almost anything could be true.

This is the Liberal approach to waging war.  That's hard for me to swallow, as I lived through Viet Nam and the Iraq war, which were opposed by liberals without compromise.  Liberals were fond of saying that war is "never justified".  So why are they suddenly backing this one?

Finally, there's the theory that Obama wants to escalate war in the Middle East, perhaps even to the point of WWIII.  That he subscribes to the Islamic prophecies of bringing the Caliphate into power so they rule the world.  I am afraid to even consider that this theory might be true.

Maybe there's a liberal out there who is reading this that can explain it to me.  Because I'm still lost for a reasonable explanation.

The Football Post

My annual football post is becoming a bit of a tradition for this blog.  As a new season launches, it must be time to post my observations and predictions.

The high school teams, Columbus North and East, are already 3 games into their season.  East is undefeated and ranked #1 again.  They truly do seem almost unbeatable, but that was the case in the last 2 years, when they ran up against powerhouse mega-schools from the Indianapolis area that easily tossed them aside.

Columbus North has slid precipitously backwards over the last couple of years.  This year to date they find themselves without a victory, and given their robust schedule it seems unlikely for them to get more than 1 or 2 wins in the entire season.  Somehow the balance of power has shifted decidedly to Columbus East, which seems to be attracting the best athletes in the city.  I don't have an explanation, but suspect that if I were to ask the players privately, they'll probably tell me.

Columbus East has a big positive this year that improves their chances of breaking through to the state championship this Thanksgiving.  The IHSAA has created a brand new class for football, 6A.  The Indy mega-schools were moved into the new class, which seems to open a terrific opportunity for them.

At the college level, Notre Dame is slipping, with a degraded defense and Tommy Rees back at quarterback.  I like Tommy, and he's a decent quarterback.  But he lacks the mobility and creativity and intangible ability to find a way to win when the game's on the line that Everett Gholson had last year.  Did the graduation of Manti Teo degrade the defense that much?  Michigan was clearly the better team this weekend.

Ball State is looking terrific so far.  I think they'll be a bowl team, and look like they just might be serious contenders for the MAC championship.

Indiana is better.  They aren't competitive for the Big Ten title by any means, but they've improved over the last two years.  Unfortunately, I still don't think they're a bowl team.  But this team just might have a chance to win the oaken bucket game.

The Colts are still a bit of a mystery.  Even after this weekend's win over Oakland, I'm not able to make any predictions.  Reggie Wayne is still terrific and Andrew Luck is solid.  But the offensive line still seems like a liability.  And I can't tell whether Terrell Pryor is an exceptional scrambler, and deserved to be the number 1 rusher in the NFL this weekend, or if the hapless Colts defense still can't catch anybody with the ball and a modicum of quickness.

The Colts were fortunate to pull out their victory against Oakland.  It remains to be seen whether Oakland is going to prove themselves better than advertised or the Colts are destined to perform poorly this year.

How We Know We Have a Rogue Government

When your government begins to govern against the will of its people, we can reasonably conclude that they have destroyed the representative republic established by our country's founders.

There's plenty of evidence to support the assertion that our government has gone rogue and is now a tyrannical elite governing for their own benefit to the detriment of the citizens who mistakenly believes they sent them to represent them.

Just look at all the laws and regulations that were forced through against the will of the people.

Obamacare is exhibit A.  There has never been even as much as an even split between citizens for and against that horrible law.  Yet it is becoming the law of the land, and all of us will be trapped in its clutches by January.  A small movement of lawmakers are trying to kill the law by defunding it, but the elites make fun of them.  One particular elite calls those congressmen "gooney birds".

The Keystone Pipeline is supported by a huge majority of Americans.  Yet the president uses all the power he has, plus some he doesn't have, to block the project.

Fast and Furious isn't a law, but it was a program created from pure political motivation.  Eric Holder created the program to funnel assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels, knowing they would be used for criminal activity.  The twisted theory was that all those Mexican gangsters would be killing everybody with those American assault weapons and give momentum to their desire to pass new laws outlawing such weapons.  Problem was, their illicit plan was exposed, and so far their attempts to outlaw firearms in America have failed.  Holder should be in jail, but instead he still is a vocal advocate for disarming the citizenry.

We can only thank God for the silver lining, which is all the laws these elites have been trying to push through against the will of the people that have failed up to this point.  Starting with gun bans, they extend to many other issues.

Amnesty for illegal aliens.  I choose to use the honest language rather than the silly disguised language the elites use to try to convince us those millions of illegal US residents are just honest, hardworking people who somehow find themselves being persecuted by racists who just don't like them because of their skin color. 

Cap and Trade: This completely ridiculous law actually passed the Democrat-dominated House of Representatives, but Republicans barely managed to kill it in the Senate.  It's one of the main reasons, along with Obamacare, that Republicans were able to win control of the House.

Card Check: Even some Democrats couldn't support this one.  It would have essentially legalized Union extortion and coercion.  It would have produced false results that forced unionization on hundreds or perhaps thousands of American companies.

Coal Industry Destruction: The president is accomplishing this one without any help from the elites in congress.  He's simply telling the EPA to make regulations on coal-powered electrical generation plants so onerous they are forced to close the plants or convert them to operate on natural gas.  So far we're just lucky that gas is relatively cheap.  For now.

Nixon resigned in shame in large degree because he unsuccessfully tried to get the IRS to target his political enemies.  Obama succeeded in getting the IRS to target his political enemies, yet he and his elite supporters do their best to cover up the scandal.

Obama wants to attack Syria.  An overwhelming majority of Americans want him to forget it.  Yet it seems likely that he'll end up launching some cruise missiles into the country anyway.  All we can hope is that his actions don't escalate the Syrian civil war into a Middle Eastern conflagration that pulls in Syria's neighbors, Israel, and possibly ignite WWIII.  All in the midst of a massive reduction in military readiness, which makes America unprepared for any new wars, let alone the third World War.

Obama has managed to coddle our enemies and insult our friends.  He promised a change that would get the rest of the world to stop hating America.  I guess he succeeded, only rather than hating America, they now have lost all respect for America.

Obama nationalized General Motors and unlawfully sold off Chrysler, then boldly claimed that he had saved the American automobile industry.  Meanwhile Detroit is a bankrupt, failed city.  Americans not part of the leadership of the UAW objected and were ignored.  Obama's top objective was to get GM to bring the Volt, and all-electric car, to market.  Nobody bought it, despite outrageous rebates provided by the Federal Government to try to help them sell.  The Volt's a running joke.

Obama bailed out the banks, brokerage firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Americans objected, but he did it anyway. 

Congress pushed through a law nationalizing Student Loans.  It's been a disaster.  College students are racking up unprecedented debt to pay the outrageous tuition and fees hiked out of sight by their universities, then can't find a job and are unable to repay.  That law got pushed through so fast that there was no time for opposition to get organized.

When pressed on the poor economy, he mostly continues to blame his predecessor.  But his only economic solutions are higher taxes and more regulation, which of course effects the economy negatively.  He's either bent on destroying American business or is clueless about what makes American business work.  I have concluded it's the former.

In his first term, I considered Obama as about the equivalent of Jimmy Carter in terms of the race to become the worst president in my lifetime.  Now he's surpassed the peanut farmer from Georgia, hands-down.

How Would I Vote on Bombing Syria?

Over the holiday weekend I heard some congressmen talking about Obama's request that they pass a resolution granting him authority to punish Assad by tossing a few tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria.  It was quite interesting to hear Republicans and Democrats alike saying pretty much the same thing:

"I'm not sold yet.  I'm going to need to get a lot of questions answered before I'm willing to vote to authorize the use of force against Syria."

The words weren't the same, but the sentiment certainly matched.

The Syrian civil war has been boiling for nearly 2 years, but only now do we have the president paying attention.  The reported death toll in their civil war so far is about 120,000.  But Obama drew the "red line" in the sand, promising he would act if Assad used chemical weapons.  The chemical weapons came out almost immediately, but Obama ignored them.  So they came out again recently, and Obama was being embarrassed by his failure to follow through on his red line.

Now it seems the president wants to toss a few tomahawks into Syria so he can say he acted on his ultimatum.  But tossing a few tomahawks into the desert that destroy some empty buildings sounds like an empty effort to me.  Worse yet, what if some of the missiles destroy a bunch of civilians but fail to take out any military assets?  Whether that happens or not, we can count on Al Jazeera airing lots of pictures of mourners in the streets with their dead families they claim were killed in the American attack.

The critical question is, what American interests are at stake?  How can we insure our actions help the side in the civil war that will be friendly to Americans rather than affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and/or Al Quaeda?

They say that the Middle East is watching closely to see what America does.  If we choose not to respond, it telegraphs a message that we won't actually do anything to the rogue regimes.  We won't stop Iran's nuclear weapons program.  We won't be serious about stopping terrorism.  Perhaps we won't even help Israel if they are attacked, even with nuclear weapons.

My thinking is that if America is really serious about stopping rogue middle eastern dictators from using WMD, we probably should mount a campaign against Assad with the simple objective of destroying the Assad regime.  Then we let the vacuum be filled by whoever is strongest, which probably means radical islamists and probably Iran.

So way back a year ago, when the Syrian rebels were supposedly not radical Islamists, maybe Obama should have funneled resources to the rebels and mounted an air campaign to destroy the Syrian military capability.  But that ship sailed a year ago.  There is no good option today.

So I agree with the people in congress who have said they need a lot more information before they would vote to support this symbolic attack.  Without any information to convince me that the attack will be the least bit meaningful, I think my vote would be "No".  Or in congress, maybe it would be "Nay".