Various thoughts about the Trump impeachment

As I write this it's 1:35 a.m. and it's all over but the cryin'.  Sometime in the next eighteen hours will likely come the final vote on Impeachment 2020 and the end of this mess.  Donald John Trump will remain President of the United States for another year and quite possibly more than that.

I've never doubted the outcome.  Trump had this in the bag on a party-line vote alone.  But I never thought that the final days of this fiasco would be such a bewildering demonstration of both brilliance and ignorance.  This impeachment will be studied for generations to come about how not to impeach, as well as how to effectively counter one.

So, admitting that I only took time to watch the trial proceedings itself during the past few days, here are some sundry musings...

1.  "Abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are not impeachable offenses.  I don't even know what the hell "obstruction of Congress" is supposed to mean in this context.

2.  There will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth in coming days and weeks about the issue of witnesses during the Senate trial phase.  Namely, about the House impeachment managers wanting John Bolton to testify.  They are forgetting that witnesses had already testified during the impeachment hearings.

3.  The trial is based on testimony and evidence already presented and entered into record during the House impeachment proceedings.  The Senate trial is absolutely not the place to introduce new witnesses and evidence.

4.  The House managers betrayed a lack of faith in their own case by demanding new witnesses this late in the game.

5.  The table at which the Trump counsel sat looked neat, dignified, corporate, razor-focused and serious.  Meanwhile the table of the House managers resembled a cram session of some college frat house, all that's missing are the boxes of cold pizza.

6.  Speaking of Trump's legal representation, any reputable law professor should make required viewing of the performance of Sekulow, Dershowitz, Philbin et al.  They have 10000% been the model of what competent attorneys should be in regard to the interest of the client.

7.  In stark contrast, the House managers' case has been very little apart from retread of the past three months, excruciatingly drawn out, absent any fresh or sound legal argument, and loaded with weary political rhetoric.

8.  Okay, this one sticks out like a sore thumb to me.  During this final day of Senate questioning I heard Adam Schiff and the other House managers insist that they want a "fair trial", hence more witnesses.  They were completely ignoring the basic underpinnings of how the trial process under United States law works and has always been intended to work.  The American courtroom is an adversarial arena, prosecutor versus defendant, and the onus is on the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant.  Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler and the rest of the managers have instead all along played this as if it's up to Trump himself to provide evidence and testimony that he's guilty.  Trump has not done this.  Neither is any other defendant under American law obligated to so testify against himself or herself.  I think during the second half of the impeachment trial when it became glaringly obvious that theirs was a lost cause, the managers dropped even a semblance of pretending they wanted a "fair trial" and began attempting to rig the game.  Hence, trying to bring John Bolton into the mix.  That alone screamed how much of a sham this impeachment has been from the beginning.

9.  The House managers should be really thankful that they didn't get witnesses during the Senate trial.  Not I, or any criminal law expert, or sane American for that matter, would not think for an iota of a moment that the Trump team would NOT pounce and begin calling witnesses of their own.  And it would be an unprecedented fiasco.  Indeed, potentially calling Hunter Biden to take the stand, and maybe even Adam Schiff himself, the "whistleblower", former Vice President of the United States Joseph Biden... the Trump counsel would find any and every reason to have them sworn and testify on the stand.  And the result would be a crippling blow to the Democrat Party from which it might never recover.

10.  I am chuckling at the ignorance many are radiating tonight, that in the event of a 50-50 tie on the witnesses issue, how Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will cast the deciding vote.  Roberts is not a member of the Senate.  He represents an entirely separate branch of government.  If fair is truly fair, then Vice President Pence will break the tie and some will say that Trump himself would be entitled to the vote.

11.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will go down as the conductor of the sloppiest, most mismanaged prosecution effort in the history of anything.  Had this been a criminal proceeding, the jury would have spent five minutes before returning a "not guilty" verdict.  She had her eyes on the prize but had no vision whatsoever of how to achieve it.

12.  I expect that this coming Tuesday night's State of the Union address is gonna be a LOT of fun to behold.

So much else that could come to mind, but it's late already.  Maybe better legal minds than mine can remark on whatever I've missed here.

Read More

On the passing of H. Ross Perot

Hearing the news that Ross Perot had died earlier today was like feeling a punch to the gut of that persistent eighteen-year old in my personal nature.  Maybe it had to do with the memory of working the local Perot campaign headquarters in those heady days of fall 1992.  Located in rented space on a small shopping strip in Eden, North Carolina, at first glance it wasn't what I was expecting.  There was a shabbiness to the place.  But whatever it lacked in looks, it more than made up for it in frenetic energy.  There was a sense of unstoppable enthusiasm among all those good and wacky characters, and I must have worked at least forty hours there making phone calls on Perot's behalf, assembling yard signs, picking up bumper stickers to hand out...

I forget how much of a percentage Rockingham County went for Perot, but it was a fair amount.  It had less to do with our own efforts, I think, than the character and charisma of Ross Perot himself.  "Now there's a choice!" read campaign signs and many in the county took that to heart.  I certainly did, when I registered to vote the day after turning eighteen some months before.  I knew even then: Perot was going to be the one I cast a ballot for.

Maybe that's part of why to this day I'm proud that no one I've voted for President has won.  Each one of those victors in his own way made a mess of America.  And that "giant sucking sound" that Perot warned us would be jobs in these United States going south to Mexico?  He was right.  He was 1000% right.  NAFTA would never have wrecked its havoc on Perot's watch.  And for that alone, history has proven that he was more than correct.  For there was no doubting the patriotism and concern behind his warnings about it.

And I will also dare say that Donald Trump's win in the 2016 election had a great deal with the lingering sentiment from 1992.  Voters have longer memories than they get credit for, especially after a quarter century of two major parties bringing economic ruin to America.  Trump played a smart game: running as an independent candidate while using the Republican Party's infrastructure to mount his campaign from.  That was the one major deviation from Perot's approach.  But Perot did it first, and he broke the ground for what came later.

Did I agree with everything Perot stood for?  No, I did not.  My differences with him about abortion and gun control are as strong as ever.  Maybe stronger, even.  But no candidate is going to be someone any of us should hold to their positions with equal fervor.  The candidates who try to appeal to everyone are the worst of candidates.  At least Perot was honest about his convictions.  And even as a kid I wouldn't believe Perot could pull off anything about those issues.  His agenda was about something else, and many of us saw the handwriting on the wall: America was headed toward economic disaster and we needed someone of Perot's caliber to avoid it.

Did Perot cause Bill Clinton to be elected in 1992?  I've never seen that.  When the popular vote is worked out and compared with the electoral votes, Clinton was still going to win over George H.W. Bush... who still would have had the majority of the popular vote.  Perot drew voters from each of the two major party candidates, no doubt.  But with 19% of those votes spread out as they were, Perot proved to be at most a large element to not ignore, but not large enough to make that big a difference in the outcome.

There was no doubting Perot's commitment to America and her people.  A commitment that was demonstrated with two incidents in particular.  There was his compelling the North Vietnamese to provide better treatment of American POWs during that conflict.  And then there came the 1979 rescue mission of two employees of Perot's Electronic Data Systems (EDS) from an Iranian prison.  Perot hired legendary Green Beret vet Arthur "Bull" Simons to lead a team recruited from within EDS to plan and execute the mission.  It involved inserting team members into Tehran as the Iranian Revolution was nearing its climax.  The rescue worked, none of the team were lost in the mission.  It was chronicled about a few years later in Ken Follett's book On Wings of Eagles.

Not long after that rescue, the revolutionaries took over Iran completely.  They also stormed the American embassy and took its occupants hostage.  Their 555 days of capture was punctuated by a disastrous rescue attempt sanctioned by President Jimmy Carter that ended in the deserts of Iran.  One can only wonder what might have been had Ross Perot been called in to consult with.

 EDS already made Perot a very wealthy man and he became ridiculously more wealthy when he sold the company some years later.  A billionaire multiple times over, he went on to found Perot Systems.  And then came that night in March of 1992 when Larry King asked Perot on nationwide television if he would run for President.  Perot said he would, provided he qualified for the ballot in all fifty states.  A few short months later he had met all qualifications.  And though we could debate all day about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of his early departure from the campaign, none can question that when he came back months later promising "a world class campaign"... and he delivered on that promise.

Of course, that campaign cannot be mentioned without bringing to mind those informercials - which ran simultaneously every time on all the major networks - that Perot made.  In each one he laid out with nothing more than a pointer and a series of charts the situation in America and what would be needed to fix it.  From one of those came a personal catchphrase of mine: "It will be tough, but it will be fun."

It would be tempting to post a clip of myself doing my Ross Perot impersonation.  But not now.  I will however post a pic of the two campaign buttons I proudly wore that season.  One of which was made during a craft fair during lunch one day at my high school:

There isn't much else that one could say about H. Ross Perot.  Except that he may not have won in 1992 and then again in 1996 when he ran again.  But he left an indelible mark upon American presidential politics.  And that mark may have come back to haunt the Clintons more than two decades later after all.  Not a few times  have I heard in recent years "Ross was right".

Whatever one may think of the guy, it has to be said: he lived an enviable life and abided by his principles.  And we are each the better for that kind of example.

Godspeed, Mr. Perot.  And thank you.

Read More

Lesser-known executive orders of President Trump

As everyone knows, Donald Trump wasted no time in getting to work signing executive orders once he was seated in the Oval Office.  And we all saw the pics of him putting them into effect.  However most aren't aware of a few of the orders he issued after his inauguration.

Fortunately, you're in luck!  Because though I had completely forgotten about these until last night, I was in San Diego when Trump took office and was making sure to thoroughly document the early days of his administration.  So here, for what may be the first time for many Americans, are some of the other EOs that President Trump immediately moved upon...

The "No Celluloid Left Behind" Act:

Bringing whole new meaning to "pork barrel politics":

Just putting into law something we already knew:

Even President Trump's WORST opponents must surely be applauding his wisdom on this one:

He got this one through.  Unfortunately the Senate didn't confirm Dr. Demento as United Nations ambassador:

"We're making reboots, and they're gonna be yuuuuge, and they're gonna be beautiful."

"Hail to the king, baby."

It was a great job, until I was expelled from the country 48 hours later...

AND LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST...

Read More

So ummmm... a letter from President Trump arrived...

Several months ago, following a mass shooting incident and some remarks he had made about mental illness, I composed a letter to The Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the United States.  In the letter I shared some understanding that I, as a person with bipolar disorder, have come to discover.  Namely, that mental illness is a condition of the mind, and not the heart.  Over much of the past year especially I have worked alongside many who also have varying types of mental illness.  Not one of them is a person I would ever consider to be a danger to others.  But I also do realize that there is a stigma, and maybe it will be with us for a long time still.  And I suppose there is little that just one guy with a blog can do about that.

Even so: bipolar disorder has wrecked havoc with my neurobiology.  But it can't touch my soul.  That's something still left as a choice to each of us.  We decide whether we will take the path of good or bad with each new day.  And that is what defines us... and no matter what is beyond our control within our grey matter.

Well, it took awhile for me to receive it - because your Friend and Humble Narrator has been busy with stuff here and yonder - but late in June a letter from President Trump arrived, and in it he addressed many of the matters that I was attempting to bring to his attention.  He doesn't touch upon the thoughts I conveyed about mental illness not affecting moral choice, but neither do I get the sense that it was entirely a "form letter" either.  Somebody in the White House read it, and sent it to President Trump's desk for his signature.  More than likely he has written letters about several issues and the one most appropriate for the situation gets used.  Not that I would blame the guy.  Nor can I blame him for the late reply.  I mean, hey... he's the President of the United States!  Dude's got a lot on his plate.  But it's still quite nice to get a response with his signature on it.

Anyway, here it is.  With my current location smudged beyond any reasonable ability to deduce my whereabouts:

Part of me wondered if I should post this without asking for President Trump's permission first.  Then I rembered how busy he is and that it took eight months to get this letter!  I'm gonna assume that it's okay with him.

Anyhoo, Mr. President, if you're reading this: Thank you.  And your concerns and beliefs on the matter are greatly appreciated.

Read More

Pistol-packin' President: Reagan had a .38

The greatest president of the past half-century - at least - and he kept a sidearm during his time in the Oval Office.

I don't care what your political persuasion, you gotta admit: that is severely hardcore.

The New York Daily News has an eye-opening story revealing something that until now only members of the Secret Service were aware of: that Ronald Reagan not only believed in the Second Amendment, he actively practiced it.  Specifically, he had a .38 pistol nearby as a personal firearm during his time as President of the United States.  He especially hid it in a briefcase as he traveled on Air Force One.

The article by Brad Meltzer goes into detail about what other presidents have carried with them.  George H.W. Bush toted his driver's license around, and Clinton had a photo of Hillary and Chelsea (no comment).  Obama carries a Blackberry but no wallet and no money which is why he's sometimes asked to borrow some (again, no comment).

But no one among the occupants of the White House during the past thirty years or so has done it as bad-a$$ as Reagan did.

Anyhoo, it's a very neat article if you're at all interested in presidential history.  Kinda makes you wonder what else is still out there waiting to be discovered.

Read More

Too many candidates? How to remedy the presidential debates

In the past few days I've seen a lot of commotion about the first Republican presidential "debate", set for a few months from now.  The biggest deal is about the number of candidates who may appear on the stage: some are counting as many as 19.  And there's the mess going on right now with George Stephanopoulos: the ABC whateverhedoes and how he donated $75,000 to the Clintons: common sense would be that no "journalist" that blatantly compromised would serve as moderator for any debate, much less a Republican one.

Then again, I haven't been impressed by any moderator of presidential politics in recent years.  Don't even get me started on the Fox News guy who blatantly asked Ron Paul during one of the early debates if he seriously thought he was a presidential contender.  If that wasn't biased journalism, then I don't know what is.

Back to the amount of candidates.  Actually, we can address the moderator issue as well.  There is a very simple solution.  Of course this being about the politics and power of high office, don't expect it to be adopted:

All 19 candidates in a row on stage.  The moderator asks one question to all of the candidates.  Then in random order each candidate gives his response, with a minute of time allotted for his or her answer.  No rebuttals.

It's not a "debate" in the fullest sense of the term.  More of a candidates forum.  And it's worked before.

When I ran for board of education some years ago, there were 16 candidates running for five seats.  There were two forums for candidates to express their views.  There was a televised forum, which due to studio space constraints had us going in front of the camera three at a time, and there was a public forum at one of the county's elementary schools.  Fifteen candidates total took to the stage (another candidate refused to come and tried to make a ridiculous spectacle of it later on).  I think we got in 5 or 6 questions total.  It ran quick and smooth, and everyone came away from it informed about the candidates.

It also served to engender no animosity among the candidates or toward the moderator.  When everyone is getting asked the same question, without room for obvious bias on the part of the alleged journalist doing the moderating, well... it makes for a debate that is more even-keel for all involved.

Fifteen candidates doing a debate.  That was completely fair and unbiased in regard to anyone.

Don't tell me it can't be done.  It can.  I should know.  I was there.  I was one of the candidates.

But I'm not expecting my recommendations to meet with any approval from either the Republican or Democrat parties, or the media giants who perpetuate the weary drama between them.  My suggestions are meant for a better sort of citizenry.  Maybe someday, in the not-too-distant future, those people will rise to the task and take charge of this country away from the corrupt and the power-mongers.

Read More

And the band played on: Obama's House party at taxpayer expense

One of the classic signs of imminent collapse of a culture is the brazen decadence that its leaders and elites start to exhibit.  Nero and Commodus magnified lavishness to scales unprecedented even as the Roman Empire was rotting from the inside and slowly collapsing.  The nigh-invincible Babylonians were in a drunken stupor of self-edification until Cyrus invaded and Alexander after him.  Louis XVI wasn't a "bad" man per se but he was too busy partying and having fun while being horribly negligent about the affairs of the French people... and then he lost his head as bad as anyone could.

There are too many other examples that could be cited from the tale of years.  And you would think that we might have learned something from six millenia's worth of them...

But here was the scene last night at the White House.  In spite of the "sequester" that is halting performances by the Blue Angels and nearly derailed the annual Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn and is now threatening to shut down air traffic control towers, Barack and Michelle Obama held a glitzy, vainglorious command performance in their own honor.

It was called the "Memphis Soul" concert.  Queen Latifah, Justin Timberlake, Booker T. Jones, Al Green, Cyndi Lauper and others performed for the President and First Lady and their closest friends and supporters.

But none of the peons got to attend.  We did get to foot the bill for this however.  The money for this and the nine other concerts the Obamas have "hosted" all came from the publick treasuries.  But if you feel bad about that, at least PBS let everyone watch it live last night...

If a group of musicians want to celebrate soul music, fine.  I don't see a problem with that.  But they should do it on their own dime, not mine or anybody else's.  I don't even have a problem with them using the White House for their celebration of an art form... but they should pay rent for the privilege.  Pay it to us.  Because that's our house, not Barack Obama's.  The President - whoever he or she might be - is only a temporary tenant.  We The People own it... or we're supposed to own it anyway.  It's funny: celebrities like Timberlake, Queen Latifah and others can get the red carpet treatment at the White House, but school children are completely shut out.

There's not enough money for you and I to visit the people's House but there's plenty of money for the Obamas to get down and boogie.  It's like grand theft squattery.

Let's drop the pretenses.  This was all about Barack and Michelle Obama feting themselves.  Unfortunately it is not a new occurrence.  I've watched shameful waste of our money at the White House for years now, irrespective of whether it's a Democrat or Republican in the Oval Office.  And this should be something to outrage everyone regardless of their political affiliations.  But it has to be said: Obama has taken it to a whole new level.  Between he and Vice President Biden, they've had eight vacations so far this year.  Also paid for by us (Biden's one-night stay at a hotel in Paris cost $585,000: that better have been the best mint on a pillow in the history of anything).

Eight vacations in just over three months?  In that same time I've been doing everything from writing to computer support to farm work to make ends meet.  I'm looking hard for employment... and I'd dare say that I've done more real work than Obama and Biden put together.  Where the hell is my vacation, huh?!

A lot of people are looking for good, honest work.  They want to support themselves, their families, make a better future for their children.  What little money they can scrape together, they want and deserve to use it for their own benefit.

It wasn't meant for Barack Obama or anyone else to squander on parties for themselves.

Read More

Somebody voted for me for President!

Hey, I got a write-in vote from Florida for the office of President of the United States!

Not a joke: that is a real ballot a friend turned in this afternoon. I doubt I'll win but hey, at least someone thinks I'm more qualified for the job than Roseanne Barr. That's... something, I suppose!

As for my own vote for President:

There it is. That's it. The space on my ballot for President was left unmarked. Untouched. Unsoiled. As virgin as the wind-driven snow.

I had thought of writing in "Rufus T. Firefly". Until a wise friend convinced me today that a write-in vote for a fictitious character or anything like that would have been just as waste of a vote as those who blindly vote straight-ticket. That a much more morally powerful vote would be to choose not to participate in that particular madness at all.

Wanna know what most led me to not vote for anyone at all?

I believe in the sanctity and preciousness of human life. I believe that nothing has done more irreparable damage to our value of the soul than abortion. It is as Mother Teresa of Calcutta said: "The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion... And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?" and "Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."

I cannot vote for Barack Obama because of his steadfast belief that innocent human life can be destroyed out of "choice".

Nor could I vote for Mitt Romney because he has gone on record many, MANY times as likewise believing that abortion should be upheld and even protected. Enough times in fact that I can not and do not trust his very convenient "conversion" on the issue prior to running for President. "Pro-life" George W. Bush had a "pro-life" Congress to work with... and they did NOTHING about abortion but token gestures!

I brook no doubt that Romney will/would be doing just as much.

And I am not entirely comfortable with Gary Johnson's position on the matter either.

So this afternoon, since were no candidates who I could feel confident enough about trusting my vote with, voted for no one for President.

My hands are clean and tonight my conscience is absolutely clear.

It can not be said that I "wasted" my vote.

And neither can it be said that I lent my consent toward this country's being apparently hellbent toward colossal ruin.

But I'm still honored that in the state of Florida, however miniscule it might be, that someone was willing to put their faith in me as President :-)

Read More

A question about Paul Ryan

Longtime readers of this blog know that I'm for fiscal conservatism and letting the free market be responsible for itself, without government interference. Meaning that among other things that I've never thought anything favorable about government bailout programs.

A few days ago Mitt Romney, the assumed Republican candidate for President, announced that Paul Ryan would be his running mate in this fall's election.

Paul Ryan is being touted as a "Tea Party conservative".

Okay, well then...

Why should this blogger, or anyone else for that matter, vote for a Romney/Ryan ticket when Ryan:

- voted for the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)

- voted for bailouts of $14 billion for General Motors and Chrysler

- voted for bailouts of Bank of America, BB&T, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and other banks

- voted for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

- voted for the insanely expensive Medicare Part D

?

The auto industry bailouts alone have honked me off to no end. As they should every citizen of this country.

So I'm sincerely asking supporters of Paul Ryan: how is his voting record indicative of someone who holds to financially conservative and responsible values? More to the point: why should I or anyone else vote for Ryan based on his record?

Don't even bother offering up bullcrap about "You're voting against Obama". I am not now or ever have voted for Obama. I need to know why I should vote for Romney/Ryan.

Read More

My esteem for Sarah Palin just soared

The big news this hour is that Sarah Palin has announced that she will not be running for President in the 2012 election.

Here's the letter that she has sent out far and wide across the Intertubes...

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

– Sarah Palin

I've posted criticism of Mrs. Palin on this blog before. Mostly about why I couldn't vote for her in good conscience, given how she managed Wasilla when she was mayor. And I couldn't vote for her for President in light of how she surrendered her job as governor of Alaska.

But all the same, I've thought that Mrs. Palin, despite her mistakes, only had the best of intentions at heart. And reading this letter from her, my respect for her has risen considerably. I've no doubt that she stood a great chance of winning the election in 2012, and she had to have known that. To have given up that opportunity should evoke enormous pause among supporters and opponents alike.

I've believed for some years now that it takes a strong person of deep conviction and principle to not grasp the chance for power. And unless she has some ulterior motive in making this choice, I can't but give Mrs. Palin the benefit of the doubt and believe that she is adhering to her principles.

My biggest beef with her decision is that apparently she's already putting the kibosh on running as a third party candidate, stating that any third party would guarantee Barack Obama winning re-election.

Mrs. Palin, if you ever happen to read this, more than anything else I would feel morally obligated to tell you: unshackle yourself from partisan labels. America does not need party operatives anymore... none at all. This country needs visionaries who aren't defined and will not be defined by party affiliation. America needs leaders who seek after and trust God first, to the detriment of all institutions of this broken world.

Mrs. Palin, I don't think you are that visionary yet... but, I do sincerely believe that you could be.

Stop defining yourself as a Republican. Indeed, stop defining yourself as any kind of partisan.

Simply be defined by what God has made you to be.

In the end, that is nothing more and nothing less than any of us should aspire to become.

Read More

Bachmann and Romney mad at each other or something about pro-life "pledge"

sigh...

Every time I come across a story like this about how inane our "political process" has become, I can't help but think of that line from Battle for the Planet of the Apes: "Ape has killed ape!!!"

So newly-announced candidate for President of the United States Michele Bachmann is feigning righteous wrath (I know of no other way to put it) at fellow candidate Mitt Romney because he hasn't signed something called the "Susan B. Anthony pro-life pledge".

Here's what the pledge is about, according to the story at LifeNews.com:

The pledge has the candidates promising to support only judicial nominees who won't interpret the Constitution in a way that supports Roe v. Wade, select pro-life Cabinet members on positions affecting abortion policy, supporting legislation to stop taxpayer funding of abortions and Planned Parenthood, and to support a fetal pain bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Y'know, every single item listed here, I agree with. In a lot of ways my personal beliefs about abortion are even more legally stringent. For one thing, Roe v. Wade is atrocious legislation from the bench, and not even something that should have reached the Supreme Court. It should have always been a states issue... and that is why so many abortion "rights" supporters have done their damndest to keep this a federal matter. Because they know that left to the individual states, that abortion would go down in flames in this country. But I digress from my line of thought...

It just seems to me that if a candidate knows what he or she stands for, then that candidate won't need to sign any "pledge" at all. Congressman Ron Paul has apparently signed it. But even if he didn't, it wouldn't bother me: having read his record for myself, I know he has an adamant pro-life position. That's something that can't be "earned" by the stroke of a pen on a pledge that at election time are a dime a dozen.

Here's what I'm getting at, folks: a person's values and virtues, ultimately aren't something that can be defined or not defined by whether or not that person signs this or that statement. That only serves to cheapen the candidate and it even cheapens the impact of such statements when they can be instruments of weight and worth.

And they cheapen us and what we should be expecting and demanding from those who offer to serve us in public office. If I vote for a man or woman for President, I don't want to be voting for a party automaton. I will and always shall vote for a person, not a product. Y'know: someone who can think and hold on to a position and understand why that position is held!

Or maybe I'm just asking for a little too much enlightenment from our political process...

Read More

White House official sez: Critics of Obama are aiding Al Qaeda

John Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, has stated in an essay for USA Today that "Politically motivated criticism" of President Barack Obama and "unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

Hey Republicans: Remember when your President George W. Bush declared that "If you are not with us, you are with the terrists"? Do you recall all that howling about how disagreeing with the President was tantamount to treason?

Some of us were trying to tell y'all then that this sort of thing would come back to bite y'all in the ass.

How does it feel now, to be named as helping terrorism?

I think Mr. Brennan's statement is just as ridiculous as what Bush said following 9/11. And to anyone with a working neurobiology, this should demonstrate once again that there is no discernible difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

But hey, now the vast majority of Americans have been officially declared as harboring terrorist sympathies! 'Twill no doubt make it far easier for The Government to declare us all enemies of the state...

Read More

My commentary on Obama's first full year in the White House

We've gone from eight years of a drunk at the controls, to one year (and counting) of the plane on autopilot.

I'm not seeing how one is any better than the other.

Read More

I'm having a damned hard time harboring any sympathy for people being abused by Obama's goons

And lemme tell you why.

Because as much as it does bother me to see those who have expressed outrage at President Obama's health care plans being labeled as an "angry mob" by officials and now being officially targeted by what can only be called Obama's own army of brownshirts...

...I have to remember that much the same thing was happening during the previous eight years during George W. Bush's tenure, what with "free speech zones" and loyalty oaths and people getting arrested for showing dissent... and sometimes arrested for no clear reason at all.

Hell, I was threatened with physical violence by one of Bush's thugs before he was President, just because I was a reporter with an independent newspaper (i.e. outside the grasp of Bush's control-freak nature).

I remember all too well telling Bush supporters what kind of a man he really was, and how the way he was treating American citizens wasn't the way that an elected official beholden to the people is supposed to be. Almost invariably I got that "empty glazed look" back in return. Like they didn't want to hear about it.

And now many of these very folks are getting much the same treatment from Barack Obama... and have no problem showing anger and indignation about it.

The only reaction I can muster is "Cry me a river."

Read More

"This country deserves a better class of criminal..."

"...and I'm going to give it to them."

Right now the Intertubes are burning up with heated controversy about this poster appearing around Los Angeles depicting President Barack Obama in Joker-style makeup as Heath Ledger portrayed Batman's nemesis in last year's The Dark Knight.

What particularly makes me chuckle are remarks made by Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable (whatever the hell that is) president Earl Ofari Hutchinson: "Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery. It is mean-spirited and dangerous. We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama."

So let me get this straight: it's now considered a dire offense, if not an outright sin, to criticize Obama?

I don't think this is "mean-spirited" at all. Most longtime readers of this blog know that I have used my own meager Photoshop skills to mock public officials - of all partisan stripes, mind ya - whenever I've felt they deserved such. Heck, for awhile this place was practically wall-to-wall Ron Price visual jabs. And it's safe to say that I did more than my share of slamming George W. Bush (Worst President Ever(tm), thus far anyway) when he was in the White House.

But "mean-spirited"? Honestly... and I don't care if people disagree with me on this one... not at all.

I like to think that the stuff I did, and what this "Obama as the Joker" obviously is, stems from a legitimate disagreement and even frustration with the official policies of these people. Sometimes that frustration is more than mere words are enough to convey. And when that happens, the time-honored tradition of protesting via imagery comes into play. So long as it's not completely tasteless - and I don't see how this particular image is that at all - then I don't see what the problem is. Obama wanted to be President of the United States. He and his supporters should have realized fully well what they were getting into, if he desired to be such a high public official.

And besides, it's not like Bush the Lesser received any different treatment from his detractors.

Or maybe the plain truth of the matter is, whether we want to admit it or not, that this really is a country run by a pack of jokers.

Read More

A "beer summit"?!

So in a little more than a hundred years we have gone from President Theodore Roosevelt negotiating peace between the Russians and the Japanese, to now President Barack Obama inviting Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley to the White House to drink some beer.

(Read my original thoughts last week about this whole inane situation.)

If this is what it now means to be President of the United States, then perhaps Jimmy Carter didn't fully employ the assets available to him. He should have turned his brother Billy Carter loose onto the international stage... and we could have had world peace within a few short months!

Can anyone honestly imagine Ronald Reagan or Harry Truman doing something like this? Not as President, anyway. The office carries with it a kind of dignified weight that, unfortunately, I'm not seeing honored very much at all lately. Then again, this sort of thing has been building/devolving for years anyway, so I guess it's only a natural progression.

Read More

Stating the obvious

Barack Obama's public approval ratings are plummeting through the floor.

His opponents are crowing about how Obama is now officially not as bad as George W. Bush was.

But let's call it for what this really means...

All this seriously demonstrates, unequivocally, is that twice in a row we have had Presidents of the United States who were/are so bad that they suck donkeys balls to no end.

Read More

The dumbest thing Obama has done as President thus far...

...and Obama is doing plenty of dumb things since taking office just six months ago.

I'm talking about how President Obama brought up the arrest of his friend and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. during his press conference last night, denouncing the police involved in the matter as acting "stupidly".

Here's what was wrong with that: in doing so, Obama has now compromised his moral authority as President of the United States... and particularly when it is seen that he did so on behalf of his own personal and private interests. Obama has also - and in a more egregious fashion than any President in perhaps living memory - used his public office to level an accusation beyond the scope afforded him by the Constitution. And in doing that, Obama has now involved the Presidency in what should have remained a matter for the local community.

(Incidentally, Bill Cosby has now weighed in and said Obama's remarks last night "shocked" him: "If I'm the president of the United States, I don't care how much pressure people want to put on it about race, I'm keeping my mouth shut.")

I have thought for some time that Obama has been neither wise or inspiring. His comments last night only solidify that sentiment in my mind...

...but then, it's been twenty years or so since we did have a President that was wise and inspiring, so why should I be expecting any different?

Read More

Some random musings on things...

A few months ago George W. Bush proposed wasting hundreds of billions of dollars of our money and it was called "bailout" and some politicians approved it. Today Barack Obama is proposing wasting hundreds of billions of dollars of our money and it's being called "stimulus" and those same politicians deride it as unacceptable.

I would like to quote "Oceania is at war with Eurasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia" to the Powers That Be, but sad to say, they most likely wouldn't get it.

And now that he's President, doesn't Obama have better things to do than to get into the proverbial "pissing contest" with a radio commentator who is nothing more than a shameless shill for the "other side"?

Don't we have better things to do than to even care about such a non-story involving two men with apparently arrested development?

Pat Buchanan is right: we have become an unserious people in a serious time.

Read More

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

President Obama plans to uphold the power that George W. Bush asserted in regards to spying on Americans without a warrant.

So much for not sacrificing our ideals for safety that Obama kept talking about this past week after he got sworn into office.

I hate to say "I told you so" but... many people, including myself, were screaming as loud as we could during the past several years that the horrible precedents that Bush was setting, would likely come back to haunt us. For almost eight years, Bush got away with violating the Constitution - in both rule and spirit - and his cheerleaders kept assuring us that Bush "had no choice" but to do these things to keep us secure.

Now those same powers have gone to a man that many of these same people have not been able to hide their sheer hatred toward. And however it is that Obama might choose to exercise those powers, these same people have no moral or logical grounds to oppose him.

Consider whatever else I might have otherwise posted about this, as an exercise for the reader.

Read More