The Griffis Gazette

10 Years.

2011-09-11T11:35:00.000-07:00

"Oh my God, it's a suicide mission."

As Todd Burnett had learned about the the WTC attack from his wife, he realized the fate of his own United Flight 93. We all know what he and the other passengers of that flight decided to do about that. They became the first soldiers of the war we are still fighting.

I've spent today day watching 9/11 specials on the History Channel. I know I am not alone in my disbelief that 10 years have passed. Watching the footage from that day, it doesn't even look like a decade ago. The footage is crisp, the people are wearing clothes that still look current, they are on cell phones, it looks like yesterday. The most sobering realization of the amount of time that has passed is that my nephew was born a month after 9/11, and is turning 10 this year. He and the 5 other post 9/11 children in my family and all of their milestones and birthdays make that real for me.

There is a different feel to 9/11 for me this year. For one thing, I'm so grateful that there is not a man in cave, or as it turns out a house, celebrating our grief today. Not this year. Justice. I've seen/heard almost nothing about ridiculous conspiracy theories. Merciful. But also, while I'm still instantly jolted back to the hurt, the feelings, the memories, the moments of that day, I'm starting to spend more time thinking about how this day is going to be processed in years to come. My nephew and nieces, their generation....when they are our age, are not going to see the footage and instantly remember that day. The hurt and pain we feel, they can't fully relate. The anger we still have, they wont fully understand. They wont be able to instantly evoke the heart-stopping pride we felt watching the firemen, the police, they everyday person, the passengers on flight 93. Not like us. Fear. We have to keep this story true and as much as it hurts us, we have to show them. We learned so much about the world, about evil and good, about who we are, and we cannot let them grow up without passing that on to them.

In my life, I write to process my feelings and thoughts. Every year on 9/11, I write. It is usually a tribute, a recollection, a bookmark to myself about where I am in healing. If you have ever lost anyone very important to you, you know that you never heal...the pain does not go away, it lies dormant until it is triggered by a memory, a song, a picture, a date, a moment...and instantly the hurt, anger, unjustness becomes as real as the day it happened. Even 20 years later. The process of healing never ends. 9/11 is our collective grief experience. The raw emotions, dormant 364 days of the year, remind us that we are still healing. Those of us who lived through that day will never heal.

The years since 9/11 have been painfully divisive for our country. I'm not sure anyone really knew how to handle that day from a national security standpoint, but the decisions the Bush team made drew hatred and wrath from those who disagreed with him. Citizens took sides behind the ideological barriers, and to this day, we are still so bitterly divided. Even more than the heartbreaking stories of loss from that day, this saddens me the most. We became the family who bickers over the will after the funeral where we supported and held each other. Tom Burnett, Todd Beamer, Michael Bingham, and the other passengers of U93 taught us another lesson...you assess the situation, weigh your options, and regardless of ideology...you band together to fight the enemy and protect the innocent. You Unite.

I'll end with my favorite quote from 9/11. It was a prayer given my Donald Rusmfield.

"Ever-faithful God, in death we are reminded of the precious birthrights of life and liberty You endowed in Your American people. You have shown once again that these gifts must never be taken for granted.

We pledge to those whom You have called home, and ask of You patience, to measure our lust for action; resolve, to strengthen our obligation to lead; wisdom, to illuminate our pursuit of justice, and; strength, in defense of liberty.

We seek Your special blessing today for those who stand as sword and shield, protecting the many from the tyranny of the few. Our enduring prayer is that You shall always guide our labors and that our battles shall always be just.

We pray this day, Heavenly Father, the prayer our nation learned at another time of righteous struggle and noble cause America's enduring prayer: Not that God will be on our side, but always, O Lord, that America will be on Your side.

Amen."

~ kg

Clarification

2011-02-25T01:20:00.001-08:00

To my surprise, it is now obvious that I need to make a clarification.

Some of those who know me well have read my previous blog and are worried about my political soul. Well, I am here to tell you, 'fear not'. I have found this great dichotomy in that, giving a forum for debate to a worldview very much the opposite of my own, has both enriched my understanding of & love for my countrymen on the left, and sharpened my focus stronger still towards the first principles that have have shaped this country.

I liken it to something I heard at Penn & Teller's magic show in Vegas. In the closing sequence of their show, as they prepared for a civics lesson wrapped in a magic trick (or as GOB would say, an illusion), Teller donned white gloves and ceremoniously removed the flag from the flagpole. Simultaneously Penn, always the witty narrater, uttered the truest words ever spoken in Las Vegas.

"Teller & I are proud Americans, we consider ourselves to be patriotic. We got a little more patriotic about 7 years ago when we spent time in Egypt, China, & India, because nothing can make you love the USA more than oversees travel."

Or, in this case, nothing could make me love Thomas Jefferson more than Karl Marx. :)

stay tuned

~kg

Conversation with a Communist

2011-02-18T12:14:00.000-08:00

Recently, I met with a member of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) for what would become a three-hour-long discussion about Marxism. After attending an ISO meeting at UNT last semester, I asked the speaker of that meeting to consider being interviewed for this blog, and he graciously accepted. Armed with several months of research and my carefully crafted questions, I met Jason Netek at Banter Coffee House in Denton, Texas.

My interviewee arrived before I did. He was exactly as I remembered him, except that up close I could now tell he was a good eight years younger than I had assumed him to be from a distance, months earlier. He had the "look" of a radical, down to the perfectly worn-in green button down worker's shirt with rolled sleeves, well-groomed square sideburns, a small brimmed brown hat, and glasses that would easily fit into the 1960s. We sat down in the hip college town coffee shop, housed in the historic downtown square, where we chose to conduct our meeting. Walls of exposed brick and concrete flanked each side of the large space, which was filled with mismatched furniture and patrons sipping drinks from ceramic coffee mugs.

After exchanging minimal small talk, I explained to Jason that I was cognizant of both my lack of experience in interviewing people, and my absence of journalistic credentials. But my biggest concern by far, was that I would inadvertently offend my guest. I had worried for weeks about saying the wrong thing, or coming across the wrong way. He warmly dismissed all of those concerns and so we began.

Since the moment of this project's conception, I've been fascinated to learn what path leads someone to being a radical leftist. It turns out - in this case at least - it was a path not unlike my own. Jason comes from a middle class family, conservative and devoutly Christian. His mom was a teacher; his dad a former business owner turned insurance adjuster. He describes his family as being "neo-conservative" supporters of President George H.W. Bush (41). However, during President George W. Bush's (43) second term, he says things changed in his family's political outlook "...they [my parents] concluded that politicians were crooks, probably more out of my own influence than anything else."

His own political transformation took place years earlier. Jason joined the Young Communists League in 1999 at the ripe old age of 14, after being influenced by punk rock music and his older brother. He credits his brother's copy of the Communist party's bill of rights as a turning point in his ideological evolution. Truthfully, the seeds of revolutionary thought were sown even earlier than that. Before most kids were considering universities, driving, or first dates, Jason was already well versed in the red meat of the founding fathers, particularly Thomas Paine (whom he affectionately calls a "total Pinko"), as well as in French revolutionary history. Early on he felt the ideals of the American Revolution had fallen short in modern American society. "In my opinion, I had always sort of felt like [there was] something lacking from what we were starting from in the revolutionary era, to the present day."

After over a decade deeply immersed in Marxist thought and action, Jason now 26, is an expert in all things Communist. It was clear within the first five minutes of the interview, that my months of research was grossly inadequate to understand the fundamental ideology that was second skin to him. As the afternoon turned into early evening, Banter Coffee House turned into my own classroom, and I became a student of Marxism 101. Comfortable in the professorial role, Jason answered each question in a reasoned, intellectual, and comprehensive manner. It became clear to me during the conversation that the Marxist, perhaps more than the average person, is consciously aware of societal evolution, specifically that the present stands on the shoulders of the past. I get the sense that they see history unfolding as a sort of multi-millennial labor, with mankind's struggles being the birth pangs, and revolutions being the contractions, which as they grow closer together will one day deliver the society that Socialists believe is possible.

The question that brought the longest initial pause, came when I asked Jason to explain the practical advantages of applied Marxism. When he found the words he wanted to use, he told me "even having thus far fallen short of actually revolutionizing society in any way that makes sense to a Marxist, the mere attempts to do so are sort of what propels society forward. Marx said that 'Revolutions are the locomotives of history' and if you look back to any major social struggle, just in the United States even....the conscience intervention on the part of organized Socialists has been crucial in every step of the way."

Socialists see the silver lining in that, while there has not yet been a revolution worthy of praise absent caveat, their role in progressing society by being on the front lines of social struggle, is evidence of the merits of applied Marxism. He also acknowledged the weaknesses he sees in Marxism, noting an element of dogmatism, as well as sectarianism among groups of Marxists whose own identified interests sometimes conflict.

Throughout most of the conversation, a dominant reoccurring theme surfaced: the "Marxist" societies that have existed to date, do not represent the type of bottom up revolution that true Marxists seek to create. Time and time again, I asked Jason about the various statist Marxist governments of the past and present, that serve as the only example of Socialism I have ever known. Each time he informed me that these were not representative of Marxism at all. He eschewed affiliation with "Communist" countries from North Korea, to China, to Cuba, to the Stalinist USSR. He even went as far as comparing some of the countries to the United States, in terms of their reliance on capitalism as an economic system of oppression. In comparing the Social Democrats of Western Europe to the Stalinist Socialists of the USSR, Jason described them as being "two sides of the same coin." He said that "in both cases, they use the state as a means to sort of further an end. And in both cases, regular working people have absolutely no say over their own lives."

According to Jason, the statist approach is diametrically opposed to real Marxism. It turns out that the world his organization envisions is one free of social stratospheres and class distinctions, and notably minus the autocrat. This society would house a "truly representative" democracy, where those who hold office are cut from the same cloth as the workers they represent, down to the same average salary. The needs of each person would be met, and people would gladly work without monetary motivation, but rather to contribute towards the society that they feel they have a share in controlling.

The world has not yet seen this type of revolution, but Jason explained that we have caught glimpses of it in the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution. From 1917 to 1922, laws were passed in the USSR which he believes heralded in an "unprecedented level of human freedom.” He sees the early years of that revolution as the true heir to the title of the “greatest social experiment in human history,” and that the liberties therein greatly eclipse the relative nominal liberty we enjoy in the United States.

This was one of many points in which I find an insurmountable disparity between his ideology and my own. America's nearly 250 years of unparalleled human liberty, in my mind at least, stands head and shoulders above the 5-year period of time that existed prior to a very brutal era in the USSR. Though absolutely flawed, our founders allowed for a future carved out by the contemporaneous values of each generation. Ours is a history of imperfect, yet constant progress towards living up to our founding ideals. This makes America, in my view, far superior to anything the USSR produced in the Bolshevik revolution. That being said, I acknowledge that people have different ideas about what is preferable, based upon what values they hold as their highest priority. If one man loves country music, and another man prefers rap music, and each hate the other music form, then the two men would surely rank the concerts of Tim McGraw and Eminem differently from one another. My highest priority is liberty, which results in a necessary inequality of outcomes. I can only surmise that what the leftist values most is equality, which results in a necessary recess of liberty. But I acknowledge that perhaps there's a theoretical philosophy on their part that a society can have both as their top priority. Unfortunately, my failure to ask that question leaves this topic somewhat unresolved.

Another area of interest for me, was finding out where Marxists stand with regards to individual liberties. When I asked Jason what his views were on the importance of "civil liberties," I got the impression that that my disarming guest felt a little intellectually insulted by the baseness of the query, and struggled to hold back a sarcastic response. Reader, I can assure you, at no point did I underestimate Jason's unusually keen intelligence. The truth is, I carefully crafted the sentence to illuminate the different ways in which the word "liberty" could be interpreted. For example, when I asked the question using the term "civil liberties," Jason was unequivocally adamant about the inextricable relationship between the socialist movement and the advancement of civil liberties. He relayed in no uncertain terms: "Civil Liberties for the individual, are part and parcel to everything socialism is about. And I would say that a Capitalist society is an incredible fetter on the further development of individual civil liberties. And I think in every single case, Communists and Socialists being at the forefront for the extension of civil liberties makes my point pretty well." He went on to credit Communists for the freedom to distribute political literature, earned by the founder of the Communist Party USA, Benjamin Gitlow (Ironically, Gitlow later became an prominent anti-communist voice). In other parts of the interview he also rightly recounted the integral role Communists have played in advancing civil rights for women, minorities, and the LGBT community as further evidence of Socialism's pledge to civil liberties.

However when I asked him "Do you believe humans have individual liberties that are present from birth?” the answer was more nuanced. "I think humans are born, and then they grow up and make societies. Those societies determine what's nature, and what's always been, right?...but I don't believe its the case that you're naturally guaranteed anything." Unsatisfied, I continued to probe about whether or not mankind has a naturally born "right to pursue happiness" He went on to admit that "I think we should have it, but I don't think it’s a natural thing,” he added. “I don't think there's anything natural about human society, it's conscientiously constructed."

As best I can gather, he believes in civil liberties, but only as a construct of human societies, not as a natural-born, God-given right. I understand his point of view, but that this creates a whole host of new questions about the permanence of the rights that are constructed, or the way in which disagreements about those rights are resolved.

I think I now understand and am more aware of one of the motivations behind Marxism, specifically being the perceived exploitation of people, inherent to the capitalist way of life we enjoy. To a Marxist, it is exploitative to pay a worker (even a decent wage) to produce a good that will make a profit for the business owner. When the production is international and the worker is paid a wage we would find obscenely low, this point is magnified. However, when I asked Jason about the effects repatrotizing production would have on the economy of underdeveloped countries, he said it would have an extremely detrimental effect on the worldwide economy. While he acknowledges that under capitalism international production is an inevitability, he sees our prosperity as necessarily carried on the backs of poor people in developing countries. The answer to this, for a Marxist, is to put a system in place that does not produce for profit, where the means of production is controlled by the working class.

While I find it very hard to envision a world that does not have a capitalist system, I'm curious to hear more about this idea. I asked Jason what would drive innovation such a society? He explained that the idea that innovation only exists because of the profit motivator is a delusion created as a result of humans being socialized in a capitalist paradigm. In his view, people create things because it is "intrinsic to our species to create things." This is a reasonable response, but it hardly accounts for the unequal amount of innovation that capitalism created in a mere 200+ years, compared with any and all previous innovation for the collective history of mankind up until the capitalist era. Nor does it explain why a country like North Korea, which has no motivation to produce for a profit, also has no comparable innovation. North Koreans, as part of our Human family, must certainly have the same human instincts to create as we have in the United States. Admittedly, they most likely do innovate in unknown ways for survival. However, they do not innovate in any meaningful way that impacts humanity as a whole, the way so many American innovations have. I would say that the evidence of power of the "profit motivator" is obvious.

A few things surprised me about this interview. For one, I rather liked this guy. He was very smart, polite...charming even. All in all a very good representative for his views. Our ideologies might preclude him from wanting any type of friendship with me, but I don't think I can say the same is true for me, which did surprise me. I guess I always unconsciously assumed that I would never want to know a Communist, but I actually really enjoyed the intellectual exchange. Second, I was surprised to find that Jason did not vote for Obama, and considers the current President to be an extension of the previous one. Furthermore, he believes him to be a failure even by mildly progressive standards. He does not support Obamacare, calling it a "massive affront to working people, by forcing them to buy healthcare." He says he wouldn't consider voting for Obama in 2012. I assumed that while Communists differ from the Democratic Party, they would fall into the "lesser of two evils" narrative, and pull the lever for the donkey. I assumed incorrectly. Lastly, I was surprised by a passing, but very poignant comment Jason made about religion. Himself an atheist (a reluctant admission made after pausing to consider his mom's feelings), I once again assumed incorrectly, this time that he would be vigilantly anti-religion. It turns out, he's not much of an evangelical atheist. He matter-of-factly explained his apathy towards religious persuasions. "I think that these Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens types, maybe they have an interesting discourse on religion. I don't know. I don't care." He followed that up by saying the thing that surprised me the most throughout the whole interview: "I think whatever motivates people to do good in the world is a good thing." I think that is a profoundly enlightened view. I have found that atheists often do not see religion as a motivator of good in people, but rather as an albatross on the neck of mankind, and a catalyst for war and violence. After watching Bill Maher's movie "Religulous", I wrote a blog that highlighted the common ground that me and Jason the Marxist apparently share, about the positive role religion can play in moving people to do good in the world.

This has been the biggest challenge of my blogosphere life, (which goes back to at least 2004) to condense a three-hour conversation into a readable amount of information. I've labored to create an outline of the major points that I found most interesting in the conversation, which itself is like choosing between chocolate and...well, better chocolate. In retrospect, I wish I had asked about many other things. For example, how Arab Socialism and can coexist with the tenants of gender equality that Socialists hold dear, or whether he supports a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. But alas, I am left to wonder these things and move on. It is my hope that I have accurately conveyed the views expressed by Jason, as well as offered some concise and insightful commentary. I hope you get a better sense of Marxism and the point of views of those who believe in it. I'm very glad that I had this opportunity. It broadened my view of the world immensely, and challenged me in ways I had not anticipated. I'm very grateful to Jason for letting me pick his brain, and for patiently answering my questions. I apologize if anything I said or have written comes across as anything less than respectful of his time and his point of view.

Dennis Prager has often spoke of, and is writing a book about, how the future belongs either to America, the Left, or Islam. The unrest in the world today makes his predication all the more real. Two out of three of those possibilities probably strike fear into your hearts, as they do into mine. It is my hope that the American way prevails, and the Western capitalist experiment continues into countless generations bringing prosperity and liberty to the far corners of the world. That being said, if the future does end up belonging to the left, I hope it is the left of Jason's dreams, and not of my nightmares. If so, it would be something the world has yet seen, and were it not for my own view of human nature, I might concede, would possibly not be so bad. One last thing I have learned: my perception of Marxists as utopian dreamers is not one sided. When I asked him what he would like to tell my readers that may surprise them, Jason said simply "We think you are the idealists." Perhaps in a way, we all are.

If you'd like to learn more about this worldview, Jason recommends you visit www.socialistworker.org.

~kg

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter, If I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will. One of us will win, but both will profit from it." ~Ayn Rand

(p.s. Please leave comments, whether you are an ISO visitor, or one of my regular readers, I'd love love love to hear your feedback. Comments will not be censored for content, only if someone is being hateful.)

The Unspeakable

2011-02-09T18:59:00.000-08:00

I don't spend very much time blogging, posting, or talking about social issues. Some people may assume that I have very hard core conservative views on social issues and don't want to offend my liberal friends, others may think I am moderate or liberal on social issues, and..well, don't to offend my conservative friends. The truth is in there somewhere.

When it comes to social issues, I'm actually very liberal on some issues, pretty moderate on some issues, and very conservative on others. While I am a Republican, I'm also a libertarian (small l), and I do believe that a person's right to pursue happiness should not be impeded, regardless of the moral objections, unless he is infringing on the rights of others. While limited government does refer to restraining government from becoming a "police state", it also means limiting it on the right, from being a "morality police state".

I am just as passionate about what I believe on social issues as anything else. But I am infinitely more careful about expressing those views and the way in which I express them. I wish this were true of everyone. All too often, I find myself angry and/or hurt by the way that debates go on about social issues. I'm not talking about just on capital hill or in hollywood, but among friends. When friends disagree about trade embargoes, deregulation, budget deficits, etc, they aren't attacking the foundation of a person's soul. But when someone makes malicious statements about the social values of their friends, it strikes a much different chord. It becomes very personal, especially on the two hottest button third rails in Politics...Abortion and Gay Rights.

For the purpose of this blog, I'm going to discuss the Abortion Issue. I will start by saying that there are very few things in my life that have as much moral clarity on as I have on this issue. I am completely at peace with my soul, with my creator, and with my fellow man about my views on life. One of the reasons for that being that I have searched my soul thoroughly, and pain-stakenly examined the issue. I've spent time talking and really listening to people who are on the other side. I've questioned myself, questioned my position, and questioned those who believe as I did. I've done research, examined the stages of gestation, read books, articles, blogs, and op-eds. I've also walked with friends through their painful choice when they had an unplanned, ill-timed pregnancy. I've rejoiced with some of them on their delivery days, and I've comforted some on their termination days. I know, from these experiences, that the pro-choice side has valid reasons for their views. I know that they have good intentions, and believe they are on the right side. I wish they would acknowledge that we on the pro-life side do too. Unlike the death penalty, were i torturously flip-flop back and forth, I am completely, 100% sure that I am on the right side of this issue. That is not sanctimony, its just moral clarity. If others disagree, that is their God-given right, but it is settled in my soul.

I don't speak about it much because I have so much respect for the people in my life who are on the other side of it. I don't want to hurt or offend people I care about, who may have had an abortion, who may regret it or may not, either way, I don't want to spit in their face with my own opinions. I will gladly explain, defend, or champion my views on the matter, but not at the expense of the feelings of the people I care about. If I could go back in time to only having 20 people on my facebook, then it would be different, but that is not the case.

I'm gonna lay out a few of my views and observations on this issue. Its hard to read words on a computer and understand tone, but please read this with a genuine tone. The questions are not meant to be sarcastic. The statements are not shouts. I am passionate, but I do not write this with a harsh tone.

What I don't understand is why people who are pro-choice are so negative and nasty about pro-lifers. Sure there are some pro-life people who act crazy, but the average person that you know who is pro-life does not stand out at clinics with rifles. Why am I called "anti" choice? I don't call myself that, I call myself PRO-life. I'm not against choice. Why can't I be called by the name i choose for myself? I don't call them "anti-life".

Also, why is it a conservative view to want to protect the weakest and most defenseless among us? I thought that was a liberal stance? Why aren't more liberals outraged that people, for profit, are denying rights to the unborn? Save the trees, save the endangered species, but abortion is ok up to 20 weeks? even farther in the opinions of some? Black babies account for over 40% of all abortions, but Blacks are only 11% of the population. Does that not make any liberals sick? Why is it ok to terminate a pregnancy later term if the child is disabled? Don't disabled people deserve the same rights as anyone else? As far as women's rights, believe me, I don't want to limit women's rights to do anything. Women are absolutely equal to men, under the law. This simply goes back to my earlier statement about the rights you have not infringing on the rights of others. I cannot wrap my brain around the idea that a baby who moves, thinks, has a heartbeat, sucks her thumb, etc, does not have the same rights as her mother to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't want to see back ally abortions. I don't want women to stick hangers inside them. I don't want women to abort their children. But its not a valid argument against a law to say that banning something doesn't stop people from doing it. If it were, then we should decriminalize identify theft, all theft, murder, espionage, embezzlement, etc.

But regardless of my views on this issue....I wish that people who disagree with the pro-life stance, will take a moment to consider the other side, and to at least give us the benefit of doubt that we believe that way for the right reasons, even if you think its the wrong view.

“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.” Ayn Rand

Book Burnings, Middle Ages Style

2010-09-08T23:00:00.000-07:00

September 11th 2001 the sun rose to a day like any other, but set on a day that changed the course of our history. In 2002, on the 1 year anniversary, we watched fireman ring the bell as our countrymen called out the names of family members stolen from them that Morning. Each September since, we reassess, relive, and remember in disbelief of the fleeting nature of time.

9/11 started as a unifying moment for collective grief and emerging pride, but has devolved into a contentious, divisive scar on our country's psyche. Even still, we have typically pulled together on 9/11 anniversaries with grace, gratitude, and love. This 9/11, on the 9 year anniversary, a group of 50 atypical divisive christians (I call anyone a Christian who calls them self a Christian) in Florida, are setting Korans on fire as a way to "bring attention to the danger of Islam". Ironically, in principle this group is employing the same tactic that Islamic Extremists use...hijacking a decent religion to make an extreme political statement. (It should be noted strongly that while this is an ironic philosophical point, it is an imperfect comparison to say the least. As deplorable as Koran burning is, it is no comparison to the infinitely more deplorable action of murdering in the name of religion to make political statements. The God of all religions surely values life more than a book, even a "holy" book.)

Since news broke of this planned book burning, as would be expected, I have heard many people on all sides of the political spectrum, and from all religious groups, condemn the action of this church without equivocation. What I'm still trying to understand is why this tiny group of 50 has received, in my opinion, so much undue attention. This reminds me of the Westboro "church" of 20 family members who say and do the most insidious and evil things, mostly for attention, which they always are awarded with. I wonder if the attention given to these statistically insignificant groups does anything more than provoke the wrong people and encourage more groups to do similar things for attention. I am a big believer in First Amendment rights, so I would never advocate silencing their (crazy) voices, but I do think collective ignoring of their pleas for attention would do more good than any condemnations they may receive. In these situations, condemnations bring them even more attention, and are really more about benefiting the condemner than the condemned.

September 11th 2011, the proposed Islamic Center plans a ground breaking ceremony a couple of blocks from Ground Zero on the 10 year anniversary of the day that men distorting their faith brought so much pain to so many. If this happens, I can only imagine the reactions people will have, and what kind of vitriolic demonstrations will take place on a day when the decade starts over for us. If I wasn't already opposed to the center being built there, the thought of the 10th Anniversary being desecrated with protests and disunity, would be enough to convince me it is a bad idea.

That being said, in joining these two news items together, I am presented with a question that I have not heard anyone address, so I'll pose it to you and to myself: What is really more insulting to 9/11...what is happening in florida on the 9th anniversary, or what is planned to happen on the 1oth anniversary in lower manhattan?

"Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity."

~ Colossians 4:5

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

~ Romans 12:17-21

if republicans win in Nov, then what?

2010-08-16T19:34:00.000-07:00

If, as the saying goes, "time flies when you're having fun", then the last two years have been the national equivalent of a two year long quadruple root canal. The Bush Era seems like ages ago as one bad headline after another passes through our lives. Unless there is a major October surprise, I'm cautiously predicting the elections this fall may be a '94 style power shift. I've read numerous articles that say this trend is being overstated, but all signs point to a powerfully discontented electorate. With democrats holding both legislative houses and the Presidency, they stand to be the biggest losers of this discontent.

I've heard noise from several Pundits on the right declaring total failure of the Democrats and Obama, and there's is some truth to that. His housing fix is a bust, the economy is no better, unemployment keeps stagnating, the missile defense system was scrapped with no concessions from Russia, we lost the olympics...but I digress. While there are lists of things you can lay at the feet of Obama and the democrats as failures, much of the discontent is actually due, in a greater measure, to the successes Obama has had in growing the government and advancing the causes of the left. The more the moderate/independent/swing voters see of real leftism, the more they reject it. Bush fatigue was one thing....a complete transformation of America, is quite another. It turns out, as I have often said, Americans are just not leftists (yet). Polls continue to show that roughly 40% of Americans view themselves as conservative, 36% say they are moderates, and a mere 20% consider themselves liberal. (poll source) Another way to view this is to say 76% see themselves to the right of "liberal". This is why, as I read one article lament yesterday, democrats tend to have to distance themselves from the farther left ideologies of their party (to attract more voters), while the Republicans generally tend to align with the farther right ideologies. This is also why most Democrat politicians wont say they are for gay marriage, even though many are, or why they have to pretend to care about gun rights, etc. You don't see Republicans clamering to show they are for cap and trade, Obamacare, stricter gun laws, etc. So buyers remorse has set in, now that the moderates see the actions behind the rhetoric... Add to that the fact that it seems Obama's well documented speech giving ability has met the end of its limitations. So now the electorate gets their referendum on the direction of the country. Its a strange predicament that what the President considers his great successes, Health Care, spending bills, etc, are his biggest detriment. But they can't say that people did not try to let their voices of opposition and reluctance be heard. I would read articles on HuffPo and Politico that tried to spin the polls, but the people were very clear about their stance on the controversial bills...they were pushed through anyway. Now people are pissed. The plethora of missteps, flubs, gaffes, and a horrible Press Secretary have not helped the President either, as he has lost support in every single demographic in the last 20 or so months since he soared in the high 60s.

Now, lest Republicans get too confident...remember that they were on the receiving end of the same levels of anger and frustration a few years ago that lost them their majorities, and the Presidency as well. One of the reasons incumbents are struggling on both sides is precisely because the last 10 years have shown that both sides are not fulfilling their promises, nor the expectations of the electorate.

So what should the Republicans do after they win this time? This presents several problems. How do they work with Obama? What do they do differently than they have done in the past? How do they keep voters? What do the say to well founded charges of hypocrisy when it comes to rhetoric on fiscal policy?

Here are my thoughts:

First, Republicans truly need to clean their house. They need to hold themselves to be above reproach. There should not be any hint of a sniff of a whiff of scandal. (all politicians should be this way). Republicans are so easily brought down by the smallest things, they have to the extra mile to stay above the fray.

Republicans need to admit, where the failed in the past: Spending. The case has to be bravely made for real Prudent fiscal policy, balanced budgets, reduced deficits, and here's something novel, maybe some surpluss! (like the one the republicans worked with clinton on) Gov. Christie is doing a great job of making this case in New Jersey, we need more politicians who can be honest with us about the problems generations of their policies have caused, and the real solutions that need to be implemented to fix them.

Republicans need to reach out to minorities. Contrary to what Sen Reid says, there is no reason that minorities should not be split the same way that whites are, between the parties. Minorities often are entrepreneurs and religiously minded pro-lifers who just need to hear a well articulated case for the other option. I've known, conservative Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and every other demographic...(and yes, i've also known liberal evangelical christians). There's no reason to continue to ignore the low hanging fruit of discontented minority populations that have heard the same tired promises for decades with little result in their communities. Democratic leadership has destroyed so many cities were there are major minority populations, the right message, and the right outreach can make a huge difference with minorities. If Republicans don't reach out, they will cease to have any national influence in the coming decades.

In the same vein as that, Republicans need to attract the young. The young have the MOST to loose with the deficit problems they are inheriting. This should not be a hard sell...but, well more about the young in a moment..

The Republicans need to articulate solutions to the problems that face our country, in a way that appeals to intellectuals, as well as the everyday citizen. The days of the republican being folksy and "everyday man" need to end. Not that they need to be elitist, but they need to be serious thinkers that articulate real solutions.

Honestly, (and I think very importantly) Republicans need to embrace more of the Libertarian platforms. Republicans 35 and under are more libertarian minded anyway, and many of the libertarian positions would attract a broad range of younger people who would otherwise be Demobots by age 22. Can anyone in our current Political field compare to the brilliance of Thomas Jefferson? So much of Libertarianism is Jeffersonian....localisim, limitied government, individualism, personal responsibility, liberty...etc. So, on some issues, maybe forget the Pat Robertsons sometimes, and ask yourself What Would Jefferson Do? Would Jefferson be for decriminalizing marijuana and prostitution? Come on, we all know the answer to that. "If it neither breaks my leg nor pics my pocket, what difference is it to me?" (yes i know thats a reference to his thoughts on religion, but it applies to this as well). As I see it there are three choices for the future....a more liberal republican party (like so called "conservatives" in Europe? no thanks)...a non-existent republican party (one party rule..booo!!) ....or a republican party that is more libertarian minded (YES!). Libertarian Republicanism is a far better future than so called "Neo Conservatism". The fact is, the Social issues that galvanized the Religious Right of Republicanism's past are not the future. The country is getting less, not more religious. As the older generations leave us, the Republican message will need the vessel that will speak to the relevant times we live in. Libertarians are uncompromising on the Constitution, there is so much liberty loving common ground. I think when the debates are framed in the right way, more and more republicans will come to accept some of the libertarian social policies and thus see an influx of new, true REPUBLICans.

So after November, I suspect that Obama will be forced to work with republicans, like clinton did, to pass more triangulated legislation...after he does so, his numbers, like Clinton, will likely rise. I half think he wants to have the republicans take over....its hard to stay popular when your agenda only pleases about 20% of the population...and that 20% is really never happy, no matter what kind of "progress" is made. Its much easier for the Democratic Presidents to govern from the Center ....bringing over some republicans who may not have voted for them, keep independent moderates happy, and throwing a bone at their base now and then.

More and more, I am thinking that this November will be one for the history books. I could be wrong, of course. But I think more importantly, this generation of politics can be a true turning point. I hope it turns to a place of unity and growth for the country and not a place of more divisive bitterness. Time will tell.

The Easiest Concept to understand on Earth

2009-09-25T22:11:00.001-07:00

Not all of our current problems are simple to understand or deal with, but some things really are. Now I know that nuance is a sacrament to the liberal elite, but sometimes things are simple human nature, and are time tested truths. You know things like when people constantly put others down, its to try to overcome for their low self esteem? Well, here is one such truth that we all need to understand: the thugs-in-chief, despotic, sociopathic, tyrants (that unfortunately for mankind are recycled and reincarnated into new bodies through the centuries) only understand strength vs weakness. They seek to dominate others, and their ambition for this domination is only bound by the fear that someone else is stronger than them and will call their bluff. In the past we understood this because we lived in a world of greater moral clarity. We taught children to "never start a fight but always end it". We taught kids that if bullies punched you, you punch them back harder, lest they become a perpetual victim to them. Now we'd rather try to understand the bully and teach the kids that violence is never the answer. Except that sometimes it just is...or at least the threat of it. It is simple human nature that for some people, the only way to deter their bad behavior is with fear of a severe consequence. (If this were not true, why would we need laws and prisons?) You would think that secularists who embrace Darwin's "survival of the fittest" would understand this. Instead, for some reason, many of them think the world has changed drastically over the last 50 years into a place were a global peace utopia is actually possible.

I see signs that the world is going to be a more dangerous place, because the bullies of the world think, honestly, that President Obama is weak on Foreign policy. Normally, this would not impact us directly or immediately. At most, we would end up getting involved in defending an ally that someone decided to invade or attack ..but in today's world of terrorism on our soil, we may see exactly how much respect our enemies give to the diplomacy of supplication. I hope I am wrong, but I fear I'm right.

For all the disagreements I had with Bush on Domestic Policy, I stand behind his war on terror. (or case in point, should I say "overseas contingency operation?") And I do know that Obama has not greatly changed Bush's policy, but perception is reality. Much to the delight of many on the left, Obama has spoken to the world in platitudes of humility and peace, and a new type of American Diplomacy...and what decent person wouldn't prefer that? But what about his more nefarious audience? Remember, those afore mentioned thugs of the world that hear only "strength" or "weakness"? What do they hear between the lines of these speeches? In my opinion, It would actually be better if Obama spoke in the tough language of Bush, and quietly changed some of his policies, than it is to speak in appeasing and weak language, and quietly keep alot of Bush's policies. Forget comparisons to Bush. There are several great strong leaders that were well liked that could serve as his model for foreign policy...FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, Churchill, etc. Its not as though he's boxed in with either being "like Bush" or "the opposite of Bush"...talk about a simplistic false paradigm! The leader of the free world should be feared, not by his own people, or peace loving people of the world...but by the Ahmadinejads, and the Castros, and the Gadaffis of the world. That fear should be great enough to deter their ambitions without action, and that is how the world remains a safer place. The international community who so hated Bush's "cowboy diplomacy", may soon pine for the stability of a stronger hand of leadership. For example, The Australianran this article a couple days ago: Lots of People Love Obama, but Does Anyone in the World Really Fear Him?

Without doubt, Bush was not loved by the world...maybe we cant have both love and fear, but if we cant, I would prefer to have a Leader that the right people fear over someone the Europeans adore. This reminds me of this quote

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill

The great irony is, while the despots of Today have more in common with the universally shunned/hated dictators of the past than they do with modern western society, we give them the podium of legitimacy at UN; a body which that was established for the sole purpose of preventing the atrocities committed by their "brothers in evil" of the past. In today's moral relativism, I really think Adolph Hitler would have a place at the UN General Assembly. Even worse, some group somewhere would no doubt justify and defend him, and of course, point to America as the real root of all evil. In the modern upside down world we live in, it would be said: if only America were different and better, Hitler would not be so evil..i mean bad...i mean, not good...i mean different from us.

What a leader looks like

2009-09-24T16:18:00.001-07:00

It is not courageous to pander to the thugs of the world, to buddy up to those who live to takes away the rights and liberties of others, to serenade them with sugary poems full of everything they want to hear. It IS courageous to stand up, and stand apparently alone as a TINY nation, and speak the cold, hard, unsexy truth about evil.

Here is the Text of the best speech at the UN General Assembly this year, given by a REAL leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. I wish it would have been given by our President, instead of the cold, un-American, uninspiring, shameful drivel of a speech he gave.

It seems as though we (Americans) have the ideological love child of Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter's leading us (using the world "leading" loosely), and Israel has ideological love-child of Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan leading them. Since liberals are sooooo much "smarter" than us dumb hicks that call ourselves conservatives (I know this because Bill Maher and all the other lefties keep telling me so)..perhaps they can read some history books and tell me, which set of the afore mentioned leaders yielded more long term peace? Which set was victorious in the face of evil? Which set was in line with George Washington at the first annual address to congress on January 8th 1790 when he said: "To be prepared for war is the most effectual means of preserving peace?" And which set of "leaders" weakened their respective countries, encouraging their adversaries who like every good bully, smelled their cowardice and weakness a mile away, and exercised every opportunity to advance their self-appointed power, leaving the life and liberties of countless innocent people under the sole of their despotic shoes? Better to ask it this way...which of the afore mentioned leaders had to clean up the mess that the the other set left behind? Tyrants speak one language, the language of strength and weakness...they do not honor their promises, their treaties might as well be written on toilet paper, and they make fools out of those who put their trust in them. They look at America (& her allies), assess the strength of her leaders (or lack their of), and act accordingly. If they see weakness, they seize upon it; if they see strength and they stay in their play pins. Must we really go through the pain and suffering of learning this lesson again?

Articles of the Day

2009-09-22T11:18:00.000-07:00

White house enlists the National Endowment of the Arts with the unprecedented effort to produce propaganda to advance the adminstration's agenda.

Donald Trump welcoming Gaddafi's Bedouin tent to his Estate?

Condi Rice warns of consequences of abandoning Afganistan

Kirk Cameron explains an effort to trick college kids into reading anti darwin evolution book

Daniel Hannan: Constitution is the most sublime constitution ever writen

Thomas Sowell on "underdogs"

Obamacare, let the unraveling continue

someone tell Nancy Pelosi that leftists have been violent also

The only way for Obama to save his Presidency: the new republic

after transcripts contradict the first statement, white house addresses the NEA controversy again

Obama to push for new economic world order

Feds seek dozens in terror probe

a few more for sunday reading

2009-09-20T13:57:00.000-07:00

Politicians and Media enabling their own demise

The real reason for the rage

Breitbart takes on big media

Obama skeptical about more troops

Articles of the Day

2009-09-20T12:06:00.000-07:00

"Its not about Race" David Brooks, NY Times

The San Fransisco Chronicle: The Democrats Hypocrisy

Despite specific earmarks in the Stimulus Bill, The President claims to have not known that ACORN received a "whole lot" of federal funding.

Obama Hedges on Immigration Reform

Ben Stein: Democrats are letting their elitist nature show through

Patterson Defies Obama's pressure, declares he will Run

Pelosi Misrepresents the reason for the murders of Milk and Mascone to try to silence critics of Healthcare

Articles and such

2009-09-19T11:46:00.000-07:00

Democrats loosing footing in the Mountain West

Anti-Americanism alive and well under Obama

London Bombing style plot adverted in NYC

Iranians still showing heroic courage in opposing their government

McCain tells my favorite talk show host that Carter has earned the title of the "worst President"

My FAVORITE Brit tells a great joke about the EU

Dingy Harry trails his Republican Opponent by 10 points

New York Times: Acorn Scandal a Serious story, addresses power of new media

ACORN threatens to sue Fox...Fox should hope they do!

Hollywood makes Yet another Global Warming doomsday movie for kids

Sweeden slashes tax to promote job growth

New York Times: James O'keefe, article (ACORN video guy)

How 2 kids took down Corruption and a powerful organization

BBC reports on Value Voters summit

Short Term Memory Loss or Long Term Denial?

2009-09-18T10:36:00.000-07:00

If you watch shows like Real Time with Bill Maher, or you read sites like the Huffington Post, you'll hear a resounding theme with regards to the populist uprising that has swept the country, and that is that those who oppose Obama are "stupid", "crazy", "wingnuts", and/or "racist". Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer said the town hall objectors were "un-american." Bill Maher said we are too "stupid" to know whats best for us, so our President should "drag us to" healthcare reform, as would say, a dictator. And there is Maureed Dodd who claims that "Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it." The two lines of defense are equally false and ignorant of very recent history.

Let me first say that I cannot pretend to know the hearts of all men, but to dismiss an entire movement based on presumptions of nefarious/racist motives, is itself ignorant as well as detrimental to your own cause.

Let me first address the charge of “stupid.” To me this smells of arrogant elitism. It comes across as if liberals are saying, “If you are not an Ivy League Educated coastal hipster, then you are stupid.” This should be offensive to really anyone who doesn’t have a degree that costs 6 figures. Perhaps it is easier to attack conservatives as "dumb" than it is to defend your own arguments, but I'm growing bored and weary of being called stupid because I dare question The President and his obviously superior ideas for our country. Intelligence is not the sole property of the Democrat Party, nor is it only manifested in liberal enclaves were people theorize if Castro is less evil than Republicans. Nor is intelligence rubber stamped by a degree from an overpriced liberal university (Bush went two of them, remember?). The brilliant men who founded this country were mostly self-educated. Ben Franklin whose vast wealth of knowledge, writings, wisdom, service, and innovation has left an indelible mark on all of human history, dropped out of school and became an autodidact by reading as many books as he could. I'm quite confident than none of the elitist smarty-pants who write op-eds in dying newspapers can come close to the genius found in one pinky finger of a Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson.

Here are but a few of the many quotes of Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote”

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic”

“Where Liberty dwells, there is my country.”

“God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.”

These are the types of quotes you see written on the handmade signs at Tea Parties and Town Halls…the words of great founders, and intellectual powerhouses of men who framed the single greatest basis for government the world has ever seen: the constitution. They were not saints, but they were the perfect storm of genius whose destiny was to build a country around the idea of self government and liberty that would eventually spread throughout a world where only despotic, imperial tyranny had previously ruled. Conservatives today are reclaiming the ideas of the founding principles of this country. These ideas and the freedom they created changed the trajectory of the world. We don't pretend to be the inventors of natural law, nor did the founders; but as they did, we acknowledge the wisdom that the founders saw in people like Cicero, Adam Smith, John Locke, etc.. and to re-enlighten ourselves on the brilliance of the system that was originally created. Elites have done everything they can to disparage and discredit our founders and their ideas, but the truth is, its these very ideas that we need to fight for the most. They are uniquely American and should be embedded into the fabric of our society starting in elementary school. Unfortunately, principles such as limited government, the rights of the people, the separation of powers, Government as the protector not giver of human rights, emphasis on strong states rights, free market ideals, free speech, individualism, objectivism are no where to be found in the education of our youth. So while people who think they are smarter continue look down their noses with disgust at the "stupid" conservatives whose outnumber liberals 2 to 1, I would argue that the average center right American is probably more well read in terms of founding documents than even the most enlightened liberal.

As far as the charge that we are “crazy wingnuts”, it seems that the elites have been taken aback by the passion of the right. First of all, since when did passion in political activism become so criticized by the left? For the last 40 years we have all seen the passion of the left, and it has been idealized by the media and hollywood over and over again. Now all the sudden, when conservatives are passionate, somehow there is something for everyone to fear. Well there's nothing for citizens to fear, but there certainly is something for the government to fear, and there always should be! Perhaps you've heard this quote "When the people fear the government, that is tyranny, when the government fears the people, that is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson.

It also seems as though, the media tries to pick out the most extreme fringe and act as though they are examples of the entire right, yet they do not do that with the fringe on the left. One popular example of real Wingnutatry (is that a word?) is the “birther” movement. First of all, everyone from Glenn beck and Ann Coulter to John McCain have denounced the birthers from the outset, as have I. This conspiracy seems to have died down now, but its still used as a way to discredit the entire conservative uprising. Well what about the 9/11 truthers that I still have to hear 8 years later after the fact, who spit on the graves of the 3000 dead by making a mockery of that tragedy? Certainly they are making significantly CRAZIER and more enduring claims about 9/11 being an inside job. What is more outlandish? The idea that Obama was born in the country his dad was from and it was covered up, or the idea that a President who was supposedly the dumbest man on earth, orchestrated the greatest cover-up of all time to start a war? No, sorry, the 9/11 truthers movement is by far the craziest conspiracy theory since the Reptilians. (look it up).

Birthers and their craziness aside, There really is nothing looney or nutty about this populist uprising; people are simply tired of the government over-reach in both parties and are for the first time ever, doing what liberals do….protest, let their voices be heard, call themselves “radicals” in the way that 60s activists did and were embraced for it.

There is a double standard…when a liberal is a radical, like say William Ayers (who used bombs to make his point), its endearing and courageous…they are made professors of institutions that we respect. They are not called crazy or dangerous; on the contrary, movies are made about them, directed by eternally nostolgic baby boomer hippies. Hollywood loves to show only the good, righteous, and peaceful intentions behind the counter culture revolution that raged against the machine in the 60s. Radical leaders like Che Guevara are all but idolized by the establishment of the left, while activism on the right is dismissed categorically as “wingnut”, "lunacy", "crazy", "fill in the blank synonym for crazy".

The irony in all of this is, for the first time conservatives are actually deliberately using the tactics the left always uses. This explains why it probably seems so ridiculous to them. What it does not explain, is why they don't recongize their own playbook being used (very effectively) against them. By the way, radical political activism is ridiculous (as laid out in "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinksy), and conservatives are the first to admit it. This is a case of demonstrating absurdity by holding up the proverbial mirror, and the bonus is, its actually quite effective. Maybe conservatives should have done this years ago to turn the tables and give liberals a little dose of their own medicine. Amazingly, even with all that superior intelligence, the elite, costal, Harvard grad crowd seems completely ignorant to the fact that conservatives have hijacked the very methods that liberals have successfully used for decades.

Finally, the charge of Racism needs to be addressed. I’ve heard people say that Racism is the ONLY explanation for the kind of opposition Obama has received. That calls of “Nazi” and “Hitler” as well as efforts to paint him as illegitimate, are actually fueled by white America's veiled racism towards a black President. This is where I don’t know if Democrats have short term Memory Loss are simply in Denial of the very recent history of George W. Bush’s presidency. I went to several counter protests during his early years and I saw all of those accusations and far worse, even though the media did not point out the abundance of offensive and radical signs at those rallies.

Here are a few of the ones I found doing a 5 minute Google search. I've organized them into 4 themes by color: (*warning, vulgar images and language*):

Green: use of vulgarity and/or encouragement of violence towards the President.

Yellow: Bush=Hitler/Nazi (it really is funny when liberals get bent out of shape over nazi imagery, since they are the authors of calling the President a nazi)

Blue: a collection to ask yourself what the NY Times would say about these signs if they were at Tea Parties. (these are, in my opinion, the most disrespectful, juvenile and ridiculous)

Red: personal attacks on the President

How short term the memory must be to forget the visceral attacks that were waged at Bush so recently! If Bush would have been a minority, would these attacks have been based on Race? If Condeleza Rice were to have been President with the same policies as Bush, would it be racist and sexist for liberals to protest her? Do conservatives protest Pelosi because she's a woman, and Harry Reid because he's Mormon? Or, even more telling, if there were a black President who was fiscally and socially conservative, do you think that right leaning americans would be protesting? Could it not just be that conservatives have policy differences with the President? Could it not be that they believe the things he himself has said about his very leftist views, and are worried that he is trying to steer the country farther left than ever and have decided to take a stand to try to stop liberalism for once in their lives?

Oh and as far as an elected official calling the President a Liar on the house floor? How about claiming the President likes to watch soldiers die for his own amusement...on the house floor?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xa5A5yW21I

How about the senate Majority Leader calling Bush a “liar and a looser”? http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Reid_called_Bush_liar_stood_by_comment.html

What about when people rallied behind a reporter who threw a shoe at our President?

Ok, so what about the attempt to decalre that Obama is not a legitamate president because of his birth certificate controversy? That has to be racists right? Hmm, looks as though, once again there is a short term memory lapse. Perhaps you will recall the attempt to illigitamize President Bush with the “selected not elected” charge that was echoed for 8 years..even after Bush won his relection by a definitive number in the popular and electoral count. http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillaNWKry.htm

How about the uproar that parents didn’t want Obama to speak to their kids…that had to be race driven right? I’m so tired of explaining this to people who are suppose to be smarter than all of us. So here’s my take on that if you care to read it. http://griffisgazette.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-misstep-by-obama-misunderstood.html

The reality is, its not a racial issue. Even Obama has said so. It also wouldn’t have been a sexism issue for Hillary if she were President. This is simply the time we live in, politically…conservatives are taking a page from the rule book of liberals and doing a one up.

I have been consistent with my previous belief that The President deserves respect. I said so when people treated Bush disrespectfully, and while I always voice my dissent, I do not condone being disrespectful to the President. Those people, however, who did treat Bush so disrespectfully for 8 years should be ashamed of themselves for being so inconsistent now to demand that conservatives play by a different set of rules than they play by. They should have lead by example when they didn't agree with the President in office.

This opposition to Obama is purely political policy dissent. Political differences are the driving force motivating people out of their homes and into the streets. But if you feel better finding a lazy, overplayed ad hominem to blame, then by all means, go ahead and dismiss it as ignorant and racist, it only helps the conservative cause and hurts yours.

Articles and such

2009-09-18T10:01:00.001-07:00

The loophole to cover illegals under Obamacare??? Make them legal of course!

Polish Reaction to our UTURN on Missile Shield

an explanation for why the left thinks conservatives are acting crazy...because conservatives are purposefully and ironically copying liberal tactics

A European perspective on liberal hypocrisy regarding prejudice

A warning from our potential future..ie, global bureaucracy (video)

Krauthammer askes "does obama lie?"

The strategy of Attack and Ridicule seems to be backfiring for Democrats

Time to be a warrior

Best definitive rebuttle of Bill Maher I've yet to read/hear

Dems abandon ACORN...Amazing what a couple of kids have accomplished...the complete takedown of a massive corrupt group

Watch Obama's inconsistent comments on the cost of Health Care

2009-09-18T09:59:00.001-07:00

Who we are: Reflections on 9/11

2009-09-11T01:20:00.000-07:00

A 9/11 has never passed without my attempt to learn from it with another year of wisdom and distance to assist me in processing and analyzing it. 9/11 is the day I wish we could all press the pause button and call a temporary truce on all the ways in which we divide ourselves. So as Ghandi says, I will be the change I wish to see in the world, and press that pause button today.

8 years have gone by since we stood helpless, shocked, and heartbroken..frozen in time in front our televisions watching the towers crash down, and the heroes rise up; 8 years since we collectively mourned the loss yet unknown numbers of our brethren.

On that day, like no other, we saw the world for what really is: a place of great evil, and a place of great compassion; a place of unforgiving hate, but also of unyielding love; a place where small men cling to grudges that divide us, while great men cling to hope and unify us. The mask slipped and for a moment, we all saw that there ARE absolutes, and there are two opposite forces at work; and we all understood that good men must stand against evil, or else relinquish himself to it.

On that day we also saw who we are. We became the national equivalent of the family who bickers constantly, but pulls together like no other when tragedy strikes. We let go of the divisions between us, and cried for people we had never met. We gave blood for people who voted different than us. We prayed for people who live lifestyles we don't understand. We held hands with people who didn't worship the same way we did. We stood behind a President we may not have voted for. We hung flags out for weeks on our cars, at our homes, in our cubicles... we watched the firefighters raise a dusty tattered flag to a rod from the collapsed Tower, and our hearts filled with pride that flowed out of our eyes and rolled down our cheeks. We stood all together as one people, one nation, one heartbroken family.

This is who we are, though it doesn't seem like it as we stand here today, in 2009, more bitterly divided than seemingly ever before. But I know that the true character of a family is not defined by the times where luxury allows for petty divisions, but rather when the storms roll in, and the waters rise, and the family pulls together without question, without asking, and without hesitation. This is who we have always been, and it is who we still are underneath the layers of sibling rivalry, false paradigms, and turf wars.

It doesn't take another attack to bring us back to that truth. We have this day every year, September 11th, to refresh our minds, to retrace those steps, to replace ourselves in the shoes we wore that day. We should never allow anyone to diminish the true meaning of this dark day in our history, even though its painful to relive. Rather we should embrace the feelings and the memories of that day, not to play on our fears, but to remind us of what this world is, and who we are in it.

I never want to be callused to emotions of 9/11, and I hope the tears still fall at the 50 anniversary as they do on this 8th anniversary. And above all, I hope we still remember who we were that day is who we always will be, a family whose unity is its greatest strength.

9.11.01 Nunquam Alieno

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." ~Martin Luther King

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."
~Bill Clinton

"Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept the free; we kept the faith" ~Ronald Reagan.

My Rebuttle to the joint session of Congress on Healthcare

2009-09-10T13:34:00.000-07:00

As usually happens when his back is against the wall, and mounting opposition is shifting the tides against him, The President set out to quell the storms, calm the mutiny, unite the troops & defeat the enemy with the best and most used tool in his arsenal...his persuasive words. And as usual, when it most matters, he not only performed a technical victory, but was given another stroke of his seemingly unending good luck by way of an unprecedented heckling by an overzealous republican. Yes I will certainly address that in a later blog, one thing at a time!

I listened to the whole speech, at times rewinding to listen again, and also taking notes. I'm not sure who would care to hear my take on a rebuttal of this argument, but since the Republican Response is so very inadequate to address such a powerful orator, I'm hoping that some may find a new perspective through the lens I look through.

Let me first address the issue of Obama's words verses his actions. During last years campaign, there were a couple of times where I found myself what i called at the time "intoxicated" by some of Obama's speeches and bipartisan rhetoric. Namely, the forum he and McCain held with Rick Warren, and during the DNC, when he accepted his party's nomination. The DNC speech was given on the eve of the Sarah Palin announcement, and it was so good that I found myself sad to be excluded from the movement, a side-linner to History, an irrelevant square in a hip new age. I told a coworker at the time (who supported Obama) that his if speech had intoxicated an avowed conservative such as myself, so I could only imagine what impact it would have on a liberal or moderate. I 'sobered up' long before the November election of course, but when he won, I wondered if my concerns about his radical ideology, his lack of experience, his chicago style political history were irrational, and I would be shown to have been wrong in opposing him. Months later when the work of his Presidency began in full, I saw that everything I most hoped that he was genuine about, turned out to be fancy campaign rhetoric and nothing more. I saw that He will say things that sound good to the masses to get something done, then later when he goes back on those words and is confronted with what he previously said, like a good lawyer, he finds a technicality to wiggle out of those words, or turn their meanings into other things. Since seeing that on multiple occasions, I have lost faith that what he says is straight talk, or that he intends to keep his word in controversial issues.

That being said, I'd I will now address the speech itself.

The President started out his address saying we are the only wealthy nation that does not have healthcare for all. Well for starters, not having health insurance, is not the same is not having health care. The President uses misleading words well, like a lawyer..because he is a lawyer. Secondly, we are different from the world in many many ways. We are the only wealthy nation that has the death penalty, we are the only nation that was founded on the idea of Representative democracy. We are the only nation whose founding documents declare our rights to be from God, and limit Government's role to protecting those rights. We are the only nation that achieved this amount of wide spread wealth and success in a mere 200 years. We are the only nation to have put a man on the moon. We are the only nation that has has invented cars, radios, planes, the atomic bomb, spaceships, rolled toilet paper, photographic film, skyscrapers, cell phones,baseball, the computer, the internet...and in terms of medical breakthroughs anthesthesia, penicillin, chemotherapy, heart-lung machine, CPR, ketamine, glucose meter, balloon cathe, heart transplantation, fetal surgery, DNA discovery, i can go on and on and on. The very freedom to create things, and yes profit from them here, has unleashed an avalanche of discovery that has advanced all the other nations, which now benefit from the work done here. Imagine what we, as in all of mankind, might have if all the Western societies had our system..imagine what medical revolutions we would see. Conversely, if we had gone down the same path they did 50-100 years ago, our medical system would be a mere shadow of what we have today in terms of breakthrough. consider this quote "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." – Albert Einstein

The next part of Obama's speech went into some personal sad stories about people's struggles with our system. What I dont understand is why he didn't also talk about the sad stories in other systems as a reason for never going down the single payer route...such as this Story in the UK about how doctors refused to render care to a premature baby because he was born 2 days too early, so he died after 2 hours fighting alone for his life. Or how about the unbelievable stories about people who are put on the "death path" because doctors have decided they have a short time to live, so they can remove water and food to "humanely" send them along the path that is inevitable for them. What many fail to realize is that there are major differences in how Americans value life, fight for it at all costs, and the emphasis we put on the limitations of medicine verses faith in the miraculous. Many a doctor has said that there is little hope, no hope, etc..only to be proven wrong when a person miraculously recovers. We've all heard stories like this. So we are not ready for any system that would leave these decisions to doctors who would give up all hope and restrict nutrition to our loved ones. (I am not saying that Obama's plan does this either, I'm just emphasizing that it is important to point out the flaws in other systems also.) In the UK and systems like it, there is no such opportunity given..once it is pronounced that you are without hope, then the wheels are in motion to make sure that is a self fulfilling prophesy. There really is NO medical system in the world that puts as much into prolonging life as the US system. As far as all the bemoaning and trashing of our morals in pointing out the flaws of our Medical system, I am proud to say that we do not need a medical "ethics" board to tell us that a premature baby should be given treatment to help him survive, or when to stop giving food to someone who is fighting for their life.

Another thing I took issue with is the President's repeated claim that we spend more on healthcare than any other country. I would like to know, exactly who the "we" is. Is he saying the government spends more? Or that we the people plus the government spend more combined on healthcare than other nations? If it is the latter, it would make sense that we spend more as a whole because, 1. we have the money to do so, and 2. we are one of the largest/most populous wealthy countries. How can you compare a country like England with their 60 million citizens, with our robust 350 million? We also spend more on cars, on TVs, on Education, on illegal drugs, on really everything, because we have the largest GDP. But what concern is it of the government, what we privately spend our money on? So here are some clear facts about our health care spending: it's about 15.3% of our GDP, which is second in the UN countries. Of that spending, here's the breakdown 31% goes to hospital care, 21% goes to physician services, 10% to pharmaceuticals, 8% nursing homes, 7% to administrative costs, and 23% to diagnostics, pharmacies, malpractice, etc. (expect that administrative cost to skyrocket under a government plan). according to this report the top 1% of the population accounts for 27% of all spending and the top 5% accounts for 50% of all spending..in other words, people that would be spending that amount anyway, because they wouldn't be on the new public plan. So who is this 5%? Who are the single largest group in terms of spending? Mostly its seniors. So tell me, how do we bring down "our" spending if we aren't going to spend less on seniors?

The next point I'd like to address is the President's clear and repeated claim that you will not be 'required' to take the public option if you are happy with your private insurance. Once again, this is classic political double speak. Technically it is true...the government is not going to force you to switch over. However, if your employer decides to drop insurance as a benefit, you will be involuntarily dropped into the public plan. There is a fine if the employer does that, but it is still FAR less expensive than the cost of your health insurance, so when the going gets tough, they may decide to pay the fine and put you into the public plan. Here is what fatcheck.org has said. So while you won't be forced onto the plan by the government, it is possible that your employer could force you onto it.

One thing the President discussed was the new requirements on insurance that they can't drop you or deny you coverage, and that they will have to limit out of pocket costs and cover screenings. This is my reaction to this. I DO NOT think the government should tell businesses how to run their business. But I also do not think we should have insurance for routine medical care, anymore than we should have car insurance covering every oil change and fill up. Having insurance cover every little thing is one of the reasons costs are artificially high. Look at two sections of the industry where insurance does not cover the costs: Abortion and Lasic surgery. In the case of abortion, the costs have stayed very affordable over decades, and Lasic surgery keeps getting better and cheaper at the same time. (Full disclosure, I am Pro-life) (and I am pro lasic eye surgery.) If we were all paying out of pocket, as we do when we take our dogs to the vet, then those routine costs would be much cheaper..and we could have coverage for catastrophic instances, and/or chronic ailments.

When the President declares with resolute conviction that he will not sign a bill that adds "ONE DIME to the deficit now or ever"...this reminds me of when he said on the campaign trail that he would go through the budget "Line by Line" to eliminate wasteful spending. We all know that was empty rhetoric, this is also. There simply is NO way to fund this without adding to the deficit. If we really had a trillion dollars in waste and abuse in Medicare then #1, why would we want to give the government another section of healthcare to run? and #2, why haven't we already eliminated that, or do so with or without this plan? The CBO has been on record that this will add over a Trillion dollars to the deficit. Click here to read the letter the CBO sent to Charlie Rangel the chairman of the ways and means committee.

a few more things:

~The President mentioned an insurance exchange and how options keep costs down...so why not pass a law that says you can buy insurance across state lines and open up a true free market instead of this false market with more and more government chokehold?

~The President said he wants to hold insurance companies accountable. Why should we trust government/politicians to keep anyone honest? They dont even hold themselves accountable.

As you read this, the man who writes our tax code has been guilty of cheating on his taxes, and yet he still holds his chairmanship of that powerful committee.
elected officials are known to have received sweetheart mortgages from the very companies who gave out bogus loans and received government bailout money only to turn around and pay out bonus money to top executives. not one thing has been done about that
congressmen fund waste and skim money from the public coffers for pet projects and then
raise their own salaries even when their approval is in the single digits.
congressmen have gotten away with scandal after scandal, thievery after thievery, and then they want to be the sanctimonious hypocrites who keep a private company honest?

~The President said that this plan will be self-sufficient and rely on its own premiums.

social security and medicare were also promised to do this, yet we know that both will be insolvent in the next two decades. How in the world does a government who has promised but not delivered on this so many times before, expect us to believe it this time? Does anyone remember the parable of the talents?

~During the campaign McCain warned that Obama's plan would mandate coverage and fine those who do not have it. Now we know that was true. The fines will vary depending on your income, but anywhere from $1000-$3800 dollars a year will be fined, oh and by the way, it only applies to legal citizens. Illegals will be exempt from this mandate.

how is this constitutional?
by what authority does the government who is by the people and for the people suppose they can mandate that we purchase medical insurance?

~the President said our healthcare problem is a deficit problem. I say our deficit problem is in large part due to the government entitlements in the past. Our obligations for medicare and social security will bring our country to its knees within my lifetime. How can any intellectually honest person reason that we give out another large entitlement we cannot afford?

~The President argued that having to pay for Insurance is one of the reasons our automakers can't be competitive in the world. So in 2001 when Ford was the #1 grossing company in the world, was it not providing insurance? No, I contend that our auto makers can't be competitive because the unions will not make the necessary concessions in time, when things get tough. non-union companies can trim the fat without recourse (such as Toyota), but our automakers have their hands tied. And if Insurance is the reason they aren't competitive, is he advocating that the companies drop insurance as a benefit?

~The President spoke of a veiled reference to tort reform. Make no mistake, he is not advocating wide spread tort reform, but rather a study to be commissioned in a small area, that will likely lead little or no changes to our ridiculous american lottery called the Tort System. This is nothing more than a half measure.

This is my basic overview of the President's address. Its long, but believe it or not, it is abridged. I do not have all the answers, nor do I claim to, but I think its worth an honest look at each issue. Feel free to voice your opinions. We will not be able to go back and change the apparatus once it is in place, so having an open and honest discussion is the right and proper thing to do.

Another Misstep by Obama, misunderstood by his supporters

2009-09-03T20:31:00.000-07:00

As I write, I am in a hotel room in Nashville on vacation. Being away from a home base for a couple of days in a row, I feel the days news builds, and snowballs, and gets away from me. The Iphone for all of its virtues, cannot keep me in the loop in the same way as a laptop, at best I can read a mere fraction of my normal daily reading. As I've been on this trip, once such snowball has formed into a massive avalanche of a controversy, and as usual, things have become beyond twisted.

On Tuesday before we left for Memphis, I read an article about the President's attempt to "rebound" after his brutal August. Part of that plan included a seemingly innocuous plan to speak to schoolchildren. My initial thought from the article was, "thats a safe and positive route to go". I was wrong on both points. The next article I read had the link to the text of the educational aides that would be distributed to the teachers. Part of the literature included an exercise in which America's school children would be asked things like "what does the president do?", "what does the president want me to do?" and "what can i do to help the president?"...hmm... ok, so instead of askin how to "help my country", or "help my school", or "help my community" or "help my family", or "help myself". ...they are asked how to "help my President"??? This seemed very very unsettling to me. I know I'm not his biggest fan, but I actually thought this was something that any intellectually honest person would understand as alarming. I was wrong again. From gazing facebook and liberal blogs, I'm disappointed to once again be reduced to a "racist" and an "idiot" for having a problem with the President addressing the nation's school children. As if that is the only reason people are upset, just the fact that he is speaking to the kids. Nevermind that I, and no doubt countless others, were totally fine with the concept of a presidential address to schoolchildren about non-partisan uniting themes such as "staying in school", and "doing your best". But like me, they probably felt that enlisting their children in a partisan way to "help the president" crossed the line of propriety.

If you really cannot see anything wrong with this, then imagine for a moment the President was someone who you not only do not support, but whose policies you think are very bad for the country. Now imagine that this President was asking your children/all children to think of ways to "help him" with those very policies you think are bad/wrong for the country. Do you really think that would have been ok with you?

Therein lies the problem. Had Obama and/or his administration left his ego and his political agenda out of it from the beginning, this would have been a Win/Win for Obama, and a much needed moment of unity in our country. Please be clear about the real reason for the outrage...its not simply that he wants to talk to school children...its not because he's black. It is because politics was injected into the equation, and now, along with feeling for years that the education system was a vehicle to indoctrinate children with liberal policies, parents now do not trust that their children will not be indoctrinated to policies they disagree with.

I have heard the President has retracted the exercise that was most alarming, good move..but a better move would have been to not include it in the first place.

one more thing...It did not help Obama's cause at all that during the same week as this controversy, some schools decided to show kids this video that talks about pledging to do things like "stem cell research" and to "not give people the finger while driving" and to "pledge to be a servant to President Barack Obama"

news

2009-08-25T22:47:00.000-07:00

John Stossel "if only obama meant what he said"

Democrats are their own worst enemy

Daniel Hannan brilliantly takes on his critics once again

Doubts about Guilliani's potential bid for NY gov

Deficit fears put Obama's agenda in jeopardy

Ted Kennedy passes away in the middle of the debate on the issue he cared most about

When liberal ideology meets a pragmatic center right populous

2009-08-18T11:37:00.000-07:00

I think this is what happens when you campaign with idealistic platitudes that energize a base whose core beliefs are in the extreme minority...when you govern, you will either disappoint that base, or you will enrage the majority

rock----- Obama ------- hard place

click here

news of the Day

2009-08-18T07:34:00.000-07:00

AARP looses 60,000 members for supporting Obama's Health care

Gallup Poll: Conservatives outnumber Liberals in all 50 states

Ooops, Whitehouse pulls plug on the controversial tattle tale emails on neighbors

UK woman gives birth on pavement after refused ambulence

Public Option: can't pass with it, can't pass without it

For left war w/o bush isn't war at all

Rachel Maddow explains how Democrats loosing their political gumption is hurting healthcare reform

Conservative Straight talk on Health Care

2009-08-15T21:27:00.000-07:00

With all of the rhetoric out there on the health care issue, I'm a bit dizzy. Its as if I am watching a tennis match from hell that I can't seem to keep up with. In fairness to me, I've been on back to back trips in the last couple weeks, and Its much harder to stay fully informed in the minutia of a debate that seems to change daily when you are not in front of a computer most of the day. It has not slipped my notice that honest critique of the President's Platform on healthcare has digressed from debate to a what some perceive as paranoid hysteria verses name calling. I think there is blame enough to go around for this. I think what is going on here is being widely misinterpreted as a (1.) A racist/mean spirited revolt against all things Obama or (2.) an angry marginalized minority fringe group who does not represent the mainstream and should be mocked. In watching/reading the liberals I most respect, I keep expecting to see an acknowledgement that something bigger is going on..but it seems as though none of these highly critical thinkers have the radar for sensing the root cause of this outrage/fear. I would like to spend some time to debunk the myths, explain the movement, and then talk rationally about the issue at hand: healthcare.

myth #1: The protestors are all right wingers.....WRONG..some of the very fringe leftists groups are in great part, responsible for the nazi/hitler signs that are being shown on TV. There are some left wing malcontents who are also infiltrating these town halls with their Obama=Hitler signs also, such as followers of Lyndon Larouge. (click here to see more about him)

myth#2: Only right wingers are angry or act this way when they are out of power...WRONG. My theory is that your senses are heightened or dulled depending on your political persuasions..you simply are more aware of the hateful rhetoric when your guy/party is power. Because let me tell you something, if anyone thinks that the last 8 years, the people who protested Bush were not angry, they did not propagate visceral rhetoric, they didn't disrupt meetings, speeches, town halls with their angry chants, they didn't spread misinformation, they didn't compare Bush to Hitler AND Osama, etc, they are either ill-informed or lying to themselves. I went to Crawford during the whole Cindy Sheehan camp Casey protests, I was in London in 2003 and saw an Anti-Bush Protest there... on both occasions, I saw first hand the signs and slogans, the misinformation, and the seething hatred, not just for Bush but for anyone or anything capitalist/conservative/traditionalist/etc. There is hate, real seething hate, on the left..and what you see in the Media is a completely inconsistent reaction to protesters on the right vs protestors on the left. Check out this analysis. I think the reason people are so fixated on this, is because for the first time, conservatives are showing up and agitating, and people are not use to seeing this..where as, we are all use to seeing liberal protests because they have done so for decades. Until now, conservatives only did this sort of thing outside of Abortion Clinics. I assure you, they are not inventing anything here...this kind of thing happens on the left when the Right is in power. Maybe in smaller numbers b/c there are fewer leftists..but it does happen.

Myth #3: People are using this as excuse to finally release their pent up racial frustration.WRONG. This is I think the most offensive accusation I have heard, and it keeps getting repeated and believed. People fear Obama's polices because he is very liberal. We tend to dislike, distrust, or fear people who we perceive are 'extreme' in their liberal or conservative views, depending on what side we fall on. The reason people were so against Sarah Palin is because they thought she was far far to the right...the same is true of why people fear/distrust Obama. Unfortunately we tend to dislike people and attack them personally when we disagree with them politically, but that is nothing new. People on the right have read Obama's own words in his books, they've seen videos of him talking about his more liberal views and they fear that he really means those things and wants to change the country to his ideology. If he were white, with the exact same perceptions of marxist sympathies, etc..they would be just as wary of him/her. Look, I can't speak for every conservative anymore than Obama can speak for every member of the church that Reverend Wright preached at and he attended....but I know alot of people who are unhappy with this and alot of Obama's Plans and the only racial consensus I ever hear is "I wish the first black President would have been a republican". This racist charge is a lazy argument that serves to deflect from real debate or render people too unreasonable to debate in the first place. If the next 3.5 years are going to have Conservatives being called racists for opposing this President's liberal policies.. then the one really great hope his victory gave me (that of a chance to begin a healing process and move forward in this issue), is going to prove to be a false hope, and leave us even more 'sick' as a country with regards to this racial tension and division. Just like Republicans were admonished that its not "un-American" to disagree with the Iraq War, Democrats need to also be so admonished that its not "racist" to disagree w/ the President's Policies. which brings me to myth #4.

Myth #4: The angry people who are making alot of noise were perfectly content for the last 8 years when Bush grew government, spend recklessly and reduced civil liberties, and now that that Obama's in office, they suddenly feel they are loosing their country. WRONG...The anger that is manifesting in town halls and protests now has been brewing since I would say the 60s or 70s. I've seen Bill Maher refer to people saying "I want my country back" with this perplexed look and allude to their reluctance at a Black President, and I just wish for that moment, I could inhabit the body of one of the people on his panel so that I could explain to him that this disenfranchisement sentiment has built up and snowballed to a monstrous size because of decades of liberal push. I've been contemplating this and what I think is that because liberals have long understood that America as a whole is much more conservative than they are, so they adapted from conventional political warfare long before Republicans did, to advance their agendas. They have been playing this sort of chess game, and until now, I would say they have been winning because Republicans/conservatives have been playing the conventional way for all these years since they have held strong majorities in the populous. Liberals have often lost the elections that are most visible such as presidency..but they have more often than Republicans, controlled the congress....because they realize the difficulty of changing society from the White House, they have seized every opportunity for Judicial influence at the state level or when they do have the white house. Subsequently, Americans have had many of their laws changed by unelected appointed judges who do not have the constitutional authority to legislate. For example...if Roe v Wade had not happened, it is very possible that federalized abortion legislation may have been delayed decades, if ever even passed at all, because there was not a pro-choice majority in the 70s. In fact, even right now, the most recent poll show that a majority of people are pro-life. I've heard some liberals say that sometimes you have to "yank" people into the future against their will, well its this kind of perpetual pushing of agenda that has festered this discontent through the years until what you have now are lots and lots of ordinarily quiet but discontent people who feel that their silence has allowed other people's agendas to change their country. What kind of people? Well, people like my mom for who have voted republicans their whole life, and done little else politically, but they look around and dont understand why when more than 90% of American's celebrate Christmas, its somehow offense to say "merry christmas" or have christmas decorations in schools. Or maybe people who have voted democrat their whole live because they thought the Democrats were for the poor yet they look around and wonder why the their town that has been run by Democrats for decades is no better off, but seems to grow more corrupt and inept year by year. Maybe they are Moderates who are sick of being called hateful names because they hold traditionalist views on social issues. Or maybe they are Independents who wonder why no one seems to want to protect our southern border and no matter who we elect in office, everyone seems to be a sell out, corrupt, liar. These traditionalists who are democrats, repubublicans and independents all fall to the center right, where the majority of Americans have been my whole life. They wanted change from the Bush years because they were hard years, but they didn't want a fundamental change in the free market, capitalist, individualistic country they love. They don't see what is so bad with our way of life, and don't understand how a very vocal minority have progressed agendas forward so successfully when all data shows that the majority of Americans are center right traditionalists like them, who want limited government. After the almost fatally polorizing 2000 election, republicans were glad to get another republican President, and a few years later, a republican congress..."ok", they thought.."we can relax...things will get better right?" What does he/they do? spend more money than anyone and destroy, squander the post 9/11 bipartisan good will, start 2 wars, and destroy the conservative brand. It was at this point, towards the end of the Bush years, most liberals, the media, etc fail to see that conservatives started to wake up and realize that the two parties do not serve our best interests. I would say in about 2006, when Bush's numbers went into the 30s, many conservatives gave up on the party politics and began to read up on the founding fathers, look to people like Ron Paul, and mobilize. They start to realize that they have been busy doing life for 40 years, not paying attention, letting their rights, freedoms and traditions be chiseled away by faceless judges, corrupt manchurian elected officials, and unaccountable bureaucrats..all the while, the progressive agenda is being cheered on by liberal activist celebrities and liberal media. Fastforward to the 2008 election, the incarnate definition of a RHINO, who no conservative wanted... becomes the republican Nominee for President. Disenchanted purists who have been hoping for a real conservative (a new Reagan if u will) start to loose hope and/or zeal for even voting in 08...until that is, the Palin phenom came on the scene and gave a demoralized majority the vague and distant reminder of what they have been wanting in a leader. That honeymoon lasted 2 weeks and we all know the rest of that story. Amidst all off of this turmoil, our 2 wars continue to wage on, there's a financial meltdown that serves to concentrate more power to the federal government and fund unprecidented bailouts..(which was funded by borrowing from foreign countries and in doing so we increased our debt to the highest levels in history.) Since then there has been even more spending on bailouts, nationalizations of industry, and a healthcare proposal that will likely be the most progressive power grab in our history from a liberal government that has unchecked power to pass through anything they want. It is against that backdrop people are saying "i want my country back!" I know this is true because i have seen it coming for years. I have heard people say these things my whole life, and I've seen the frustration they have because they do not feel there is anything they can do about it. I have known and been one of the disenfranchised people who are sick of the games our government plays, the sides the media takes, and want to exercise the powers they have while they have them. That is why the media is dying..that is why republicans are loosing members while the numbers who call themselves "conservatives" grow, that is why libertarians are growing..that is why when republicans congressmen showed up at 'tea parties' they were often times booed off stage..that is why congress has its lowest approval ratings in history and THAT is why these people are showing up at town halls pissed off. they want to stop this before it is thrust upon them.

myth #5: if you dont support this bill, you dont care about the plight of those who dont have coverage, and you dont want to improve our system. WRONG. one of the great tricks that politicians play is to pit groups against one another...it keeps us from uniting against them. There can be common ground found on real healthcare reform. the problem is, this bill is 1000 pages long, no one is reading it, let alone understanding the enormous changes that would need 1000 pages to explain. Instead of trying to push through this huge bill that was designed to be too big to analyze...why not work w/ republicans to pass real reforms that there can be common ground on first? I'll tell you why: because our ridiculous congress cant pass anything without all kinds of sweetheart deals, earmarks, & added b.s. that has little to do with the bill. Everyone... liberal, conservative, moderate, EVERYONE wants the poor, the elderly, the defenseless to have access to quality, affordable health care. Painting concerned dissenters as as evil, uncaring "blood sucking vampires" as I heard one person say, is dishonest and counterproductive.

myth #6: this opposition as well as the tea party movement is a well funded astroturf, special interest backed fake mockery of people who are not representative of the country as a whole. WRONG. recent polls shows the majority are against this healthcare plan now, so its safe to say its not a fringe element who are against it. I never heard anyone in any mainstream format call out War Protestors in 2002 for being "astroturf" funded by the american communist parties. the President himself said at the time they were "exercising democracy." Please let me just address this ridiculous notion that the Tea Parties are funded by special interests. Having been on the finance committee of the largest 4th of july tea party in the U.S....I can personally testify that there was no backing of any kind from the health care industry, corporation, or any special interest group. We met in a knights of columbus building where we passed around a money jar to pay for even using that room to plan the event. Fundraisers were planed, a budget was made. A few weeks before the event happened, an email went out asking people to donate money because we were short, and people did. and that is how it was funded. The organizers of the Dallas Tea Party have full time jobs and are spending time away from their family and their hobbies in order to stand up for what they believe in. The movement is not backed by or funded by the GOP (or fox news). In Fact, GOPers who want to maintain their seats are now trying to modify their platforms to align with the tea parties...not the other way around. an AMAZING 500,000 people in dozens of cities took to american streets back in April..What makes it more impressive is how rare and difficult it is to get conservatives to mobilize and protest anything. Its just something conservatives dont normally do. So what does all this activism, this newly found desire to espouse founding principles... to stand up and be counted, to finally "do something" instead of merely complaining about things get people? Well, since you asked...it gets them ridiculed, mocked, insulted, labeled crazy, wing nuts, unpatriotic, un-American, my personal favorite because of the lack of maturity and decency it showed "tea-baggers". this is how the mainstream media and pop culture played these first protests, IF they acknowledged them at all. Is it any wonder that there is now escalation because people who were frustrated are now angry that they are being mocked and lied about...you can label it 'astroturf' if it makes you feel better..but rest assured...this is as real as it gets in political action. the "big interests" like "big Pharma" and "big insurance" are on board with Obama due to his back door dealings, and are even going to Pay for advertising to sell this program to us...so stop with the the accusations that this is "well funded astroturf" because it is, i believe, deliberately not true.

Talking points, personal attacks, and emotion aside..the truth is, the healthcare system we have does need change. Full disclosure: I'm not on any insurance company's payroll...I am not a mouth piece for anyone, and I am currently one of the 50 million uninsured Americans who cant afford private insurance. I've had great insurance my entire life until now, so i speak from that perspective. Our system does need some changes. This is not my area of expertise but here are my observations:

cons of our system as I see it

1. Its way too expensive, and growing more so by the day

2. When people don't have insurance, they get medical treatment when they need it, but their unpaid bills are one of the things that drives the costs up for everyone else

3. having an insurance based system has removed the average person from having direct commerce with their medical providers which also tends to cause inflation (much like college tuition inflates b/c it is often paid with by 3rd party funding)

4. Medical Malpractice has become a sort of great american lottery. It is true that we do need litigation to minimize negligence and incompetence, but surely we can agree that there can be limitations set...and if lawyers didn't ambulance chase and take half of everything that is won, I'm quite sure many of the lawsuits could be resolved for much less and often times setteled out of court.

5. may people are uninsured or under insured and do not have the means to get healthcare coverage.

6. The current government run medicare/medicaid drives up costs as well because the gov can force doctors/hospitals to accept less money for a procedures than they cost, so those losses get shifted to everyone else

7. Insurance companies can deny coverage, deny claims, retroactively cancel polices, and leave people without coverage in some cases.

8. We are overmedicated, and live unhealthy lifestyles.

Now with all of that, there are some great things about our system. I think the single greatest thing about our healthcare system is how readily available medical care is, and how diverse your options are. The choice is all yours (if u can afford it). American's do not want to give up the parts of their healthcare they like.

I think there can be a way to deal with these above mentioned issues with our current system, that does not have this "checkmate" type of endgame of getting everyone on a gov run system. Yes, I'm well aware that the White House is pushing back very hard on this fear people have by calling it lies....but if you are an intellectually honest person, it really is undeniable that Obama has been on record, hell ON VIDEO, through the years, and even in his campaign, as wanting universal single payer health care for everyone..He laments that it wouldn't be an immediate trasfer off of employer based health care...there would be a transition. People fear that this is the 'transition' he was speaking about. You can watch these him in his own words on Youtube saying these things..its not hype. He said it and people are worried he meant it and this public option and 'reform' is the first step towards it. Its a legitimate concern based in reality. People want to help the uninsured, and they want things to change, but they dont want to give up the quality of care they now get.

Many of us, myself included, feel the President is knowingly misleading people about his intentions. For instance, He says that if you like your private insurance, you can keep it, and anyone who says differently is lying. And it is true that he wont force you to change to a public plan.. But what he fails to address is that many many companies may choose to stop offering that insurance as a benefit, because the "penalty" for moving people to the public plan is much cheaper than paying for their group insurance premiums. Obama knows this, i think he's hoping for it..but He can say that we wont be forced to take the public option because he will say its not a government mandate. People can see through this kind of double talk, and it only serves to erode trust in him even more.

I would like to see less shouting, less rhetoric, and more mutual respect at these town halls, and in the American public as a whole. But more than that, I would like to see conservatives show up at these town halls armed with facts, with numbers, with the real inconstancies, and blow them out of the water with their grasp of this issue and their composure.....lets have real debate and stop lodging spit wads at one another.

wow, that was a very long post that I'm sure few people will read, but there you have it!

Daniel Hannan is everything I want to see in an American Conservative Leader

2009-08-15T20:56:00.001-07:00

check out this BRILLIANT series of videos

Just like the left here, Daniel has been attacked and demonized for espousing these views on their healthcare system. Daniel, who is on family vacation, brilliantly attacked this nonsense in his blog today. Its not just that he's articulate, its that he is Brilliant, knowledgeable, a historian, and he is a critical thinker. He dismantles his critics point by point, just as I attempt to do, and just as i would love to see someone in my country do. We need conservative leaders that are as articulate and intellectual as this man. Enough with folksy rhetoric..give us red meat!

Daniel's blog

news of the Day

2009-08-13T07:48:00.000-07:00

liberal leaders meet a center right america

New Rassmusen poll shows Obama at 47%

Michael Steele on Specter and the Town halls

Obama and the permanent campaign

bad news for arlen spector..good news for those who dont like opprotunistic traitors

real astroturff

when you cant debate, accuse your opponets of hate

Democrats=Marie Antoinette

blogs, news, etc

2009-08-06T23:54:00.000-07:00

the brilliant Peggy Noonan explains how democrats are misreading the discontent on display in town halls

Wasted capital

A different type of Reform

Ron Paul Grades Obama

Inside the MSNBC/Fox "peace talks"

Chris Christie (R) has regained 13 point lead over Jon Corzine (D) in the NJ Gov. Race

McCain declares climate bill a "farse",wont vote for it

California City shuts down little girl's lemonade stand

Politicos are eyeing results in 'bell weather' state elections

Jewish Groups unhappy with Medal of Honor recipient

AARP meeting in Dallas Aug 4th 2009

2009-08-06T23:35:00.000-07:00

News of the Day

2009-08-05T12:29:00.000-07:00

My Favorite Brit's blog today "newsweek sys britain is finished"

71% say Obaam's Policies have driven up the deficit

The Liberal obsession with the Birthers (i may be doing a blog on this topic soon)

Demand high for food banks, even in affluent neighborhoods

Government insurance would cover abortion

Obama in Context

Dems and the media get it all wrong, claim the GOP is organizing a fake uprising

60 German Scientists dissent over global warming, call claims "pseudo religion"

New York Times article about opposition to healthcare

Dissent is no longer patriotic, now it's thuggish

New York Times shows the dismal effect stimulus $ had on GDP

4 of the top 10 cars sold in cash for clukers are foreign

2009-08-04T21:36:00.001-07:00

click here

news of the day

2009-08-04T09:10:00.000-07:00

Rahm Emanuel gets schooled by Congressman for his chicago-style politics

Giethner looses his cool w/ regulators

Another Giethner article

Ron Paul Brilliantly explains why Cash for Clukers hurts the poor

5 reasons Obama will break his promise and increase taxes on the non-rich

Obama disappoints his base?

Utopia vs Freedom (this is my fav read of the day)

A Crystal Ball to our future

Obama may fall into Bush 41 tax trap

Why international climate policy hurts africa

some articles for your reading pleasure

2009-08-03T14:53:00.000-07:00

Tax Revenue takes biggest drop since The Great Depression

McCain to oppose Sotomayor (this surprises me!)

Gay Marriage, Democracy, & the Supreme Court

Why Cash for Clunkers is itself a Clunker of an idea

Calling Palin a quitter is a bit like the kettle calling the pot black....the dems quit on bipartisanship after 6 months!

The Party of "no"

2009-08-03T08:06:00.000-07:00

Being a news junkie, Its annoying and sometimes amusing to hear the little sound bytes that get consumed and regurgitated without thought to their real meaning. I would say about 95% of what the average person hears on the "news" are vetted, surgical talking points often times more Ad Hominem than any kind of real discussion. Its only in Op-Eds, columns, blogs, etc, that you'll find the meat behind the spin, the debunking of what the mainstream media hypes up (true for both conservative and liberal media). Unfortunately, most people don't look beyond the surface. The cartoon world of spin feeds right into the modern A.D.D.- stricken American's neat little toolbox of political rhetoric without any further depth of thought.

One such Political talking point that I find particularly amusing is the idea that republicans are the "party of no". I've heard pundits on both side warn republicans of the dangers of being considered the "party of no".

When i hear that nonsense I always think, if only they were really the Party of no! I would love to hear the GOP rise up and wear that like a badge of honor. The "Party of No" could probably win alot of elections. Why is that? Because saying "no" to the almost everything that progressives want is to defend the Founding Principle of Limited Government. Saying "no" to higher taxes, expanded entitlements, more nanny state laws that erode liberty, more government intervention would be the most American thing a Political Party could stand for. The founders knew the dangers of big government, and feared it's over-reach intensely. Their great contribution to mankind was negating it's power in our lives. This limiting of government is the basis for all of our "God Given Rights". We would do well to remember that now. The most effective arguments for Gay Marriage, for example, are when people say "the government has NO right to tell me who I can or cannot enter into a contract with." Arguing for limiting Government's reach is far more in step with our founding documents than arguing for more Government.

I know liberals are rolling their eyes, but consider this...what would the bill of rights be without "no" "not" or "nor"..go right now and take a look at them and try to imagine them without negatives.

I've heard old footage of Obama complaining that our bill of rights are negatives, saying what government cant do, but not what it should do on your behalf. With all due respect Mr President, I think the Bill of Rights was deliberately made as such. Rights ARE negatives. When anyone starts saying that you have the "right to healthcare"..ask them "where do affirmative rights end...do i have the 'right to housing'..the 'right to a job'...the 'right to food'?" It is a flawed ideology, and indefensible when you know the history of our founding principles. The left is constructed with the idea of affirmative rights, which are really more like entitlements that are given. What's taken in return is, more of your money, more of your liberty, and more of your individuality. Leftism, for all the ideological populist mantras, is the mother of totalitarianism. I dont say this to be outrageous... its simply the truth. Not all leftists governments are totalitarian, but all totalitarian governments are leftist. Yes even Hitler's Germany. Its supremely misunderstood that Hitler was "of the right". He was at most, a weird blend of the right & left... but economically, there's no debate that Hitler was a Socialist.. NAZI stood for "the national socialist party."

So I say, embrace the "party of no" label, explain it clearly and articulately. And proclaim why you will resist government's expansion. Oh, and here's a radical thought..when/if you get in power again, actually stand for it also! (if that's not too against the big interests you've sold your souls to)

Obama's real agenda on health care

2009-08-03T07:46:00.000-07:00

As i've stated before, Obama's public option is a single payer trojan horse for eventual gov takeover of healthcare

click here to see evidence that he's not being honest with us about it

wallstreet profits from trades with the Fed

2009-08-02T19:26:00.000-07:00

click here to read all about it

some articles for your reading pleasure

2009-08-02T11:04:00.000-07:00

Click on the text that interests you

Congressmen lament the unprecedented interest of their pesky constituents.

Geithner Won’t Rule Out New Taxes for Middle Class

Obama tries to win Support for Health Care by Promising Less

Has Obama taken his eye off the prize?

Fairness Doctrine Chavez Style

Thus Spoke Karathustra...

2009-08-01T16:29:00.000-07:00

How to introduce myself? A quandary that has delayed this first post for several hours. Well, I'm not new to blogs, through a variety of social networking sites that have risen and fallen in popularity, I have been blogging for years about my life, my observations & adventures, peppered with the occasional political commentary. This is different. I've decided to move all political/current events discussion to a dedicated blog, and put the 'social' back in social networking.

Full disclosure...I'm not a certified pundit. I have no formal education in political science, economics, or geo-political affairs. I'm completely unqualified to comment on the world around me in all ways save one...I have the great fortune of having both the innate desire to do so, and more importantly the freedom to do so.

My ideology does not neatly fit into any existing political framework, which to my delight, sometimes makes for a transient opposition. I am most accurately self described as a "republitarian", or a "Libertarian leaning Republican". I do not like party politics, inconsistency, hypocrisy, disingenuousness, sacramony, elitism, or blindfolded faith. In terms of style, I want to choose rational and thoughtful discussion over hype, hate, flame throwing and name calling. Feel free to point out times were I fall short of that. I think intellectual curiosity & honesty are the most useful and admirable virtues i seek in myself and others.

So thus spoke Karathustra will end by quoting the namesake of this post...Fredrick Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra": "It is the stillest words that bring on the storm. Thoughts that come on doves' feet guide the world."