Here is my brief debate rundown, replete with comments from a personal focus group that watched it with me. No beer bottles or wines glasses hit the flat screen. That’s a good thing. Last State of the Union speech? Story for another day

Ron Paul - Cuckoo, cuckoo. Why is he still on the stage? His supporters freep every poll and bring their own applause section that claps when he passes wind. The media apparently gets a kick out of him. They like his “fly in the ointment-make Republicans look bad” appeal. But the guys an annoying, unhinged moron that makes everyone else in the room dumber.

Bachmann - Did she every directly answer one question without demurring to some platitude? Sorry, she is about as deep as a flat-bottom boat in two inches of water. By the way, maybe Newt should have written in crayon he would not give amnesty to 11 million people- then she would understand?  She so desperately is being told to go after the front-runner, it is predictable and looks disingenuous. A pat on the head and hearty thank you; now go home.

Santorum – Go home Rick. Can I say it any clearer? He is the last guy at the party you just can’t get rid of. You know- the guy that can’t take a hint. If he said “city on a shining hill” one more time I was going to start chewing fluorescent light bulbs. A few good ideas, but the broken clock analogy applies here.

Huntsman - Huh? Who knew he was still in this? It’s like watching a guy who got his neighbors party invitation; embarrassing and uncomfortable. He still counts being in the Obama Administration as a positive. Clueless, capital “C”. Goodbye.

Cain – Cain hit the knowledge limit so many times I am surprised someone didn’t issue him a ticket. Herman’s a likable, genuine guy and obviously smart. You can tell he has a remarkable work ethic and is really working hard at this. For that reason alone, he will hang around for awhile. But being President is a whole different ball game beyond CEO. Once the clowns and jugglers are off the stage, I just don’t see Herman keeping up.

Perry - I keep getting that feeling akin to watching a young child playing sports for the first time. You want to cheer him on for doing well, but keep holding your breath he is going to take a fall. Here’s another analogy; Humpty Dumpty on the wall. I kept wanting to scream; “Don’t fall again Humpty darn -it, you egghead”. Perry did not hurt or help himself. It would be nice if he went for some more depth on answers. It almost seems like he runs out of useful things to say. And then repeats himself, sometimes with the same platitude for different subjects. Problem for Perry- he doesn’t sound like someone who can beat Obama and take him out to the woodshed. Also, what’s with the deer in the headlights look?

Romney – What’s with the bug eyed, indignant, breath blowing exasperation? Somebody call Milli Vanilli. They want their phony back. Romney didn’t hurt himself, but he sure didn’t show he deserves the front-runner poll rating. I kept looking for the Flipper the Dolphin guy in the audience. Guess the costumer was a hindrance with security? We can do better. Romney’s record hangs around his neck like gold chains on Run DMC. I kept wanting to yell- liar! But I am an emotional guy. Maybe he is right for the job?

Gingrich – The man is an encyclopedia. I can’t remember where I left my car keys. This guy remembers details of the Beef Wellington he ate at Le Cirque in 1980. Just picture Obama sans teleprompter and Gingrich recounting what is on page 927, second paragraph of the Obama-Care Bill. Admit it, you drool. Therein lays a great deal of Newt’s appeal to the electorate. Fannie-Freddie? Yeah, who was the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from them a few years ago? I can’t recall his whole name…maybe Barack-something-or-other?  Newt is going to take heat for his immigration comments. I happen to think he is correct, it is a complex problem with multiple stages. Plus, I believe he will secure the border. Finally. Other folks in the room thought his articulation was a little slippery-slope; a reward for successfully evading the law and sucking up taxpayer resources for 25 years.  Room for disagreement on that issue. Let’s get people back to work, spending under control and restore America’s exceptional place in the world.

Most importantly, let’s rid ourselves of Obama. From this group comes his replacement. There is not enough room on this server for me to articulate all the damage and negative impact he has had on our country. Dividing neighbor against neighbor. Calling success and achieving the American Dream a bad thing. Looking to drain more money from your household to fund his extra-constitutional misadventures. Spending our country to the edge of existence- all to reward his political cronies. WE can do much better than Mr. Obama. Much better.

It is axiomatic to say that candidates will be “vetted” in a primary. But someone will have to explain to me how using demagoguery, half-truths employed to disguise ones own tom-foolery and adaptation of our Democrat opponents other methods (which revolve around using blatant mendacity), help that process? That’s not vetting. It is self-destruction.

Let’s face it; Bachmann has no accomplishments to suggest she has the shoes to be President. She tries way too hard to quote history (and usually gets it wrong). It reminds me of a middle-schooler who just discovered 18^th century history. It looks foolish, amateurish and condescending. It is as if the Tea Party is easily convinced by mere mention of Jefferson or the constitution. Yeah. Right. Keep that up. Maybe you will break 8% and get 8.2% or something.

Santorum appears to be an unhinged single-issue social conservative who couldn’t even get reelected in Pennsylvania. He has neither the character nor temperament to be President. But he HAS been to the border! Seen it, got the t-shirt and everything! Why he is running nobody knows. Maybe it was a beer pong bet?

Ron Paul is a kook whose followers religiously freep every poll known to man- making them worthless. They cheerlead at every event and debate to provide the appearance of rampant popularity. They cheer others positions when they align with Dr. Kooky Pants. I keep waiting for his head to pop off and one of those little aliens from “Men in Black” to jump out.

Johnson? Who the hell is that dude anyway. He deserves a spot because- what, he smoked a bone with Bob Marley once or something?

Huntsman. Oh boy, Huntsman; where do you start with someone who actually worked for Obama? Oh yeah, Ambassador to China- there’s a “cred”. If he quotes or mentions Reagan one more time the gipper is going to rise up and smack him in the head. NEWSFLASH; you are not Reagan. Somebody please tell him. By the way,  nobody cares your wife is from Florida. Could you be any more patronizing?  And Herman Munster called. He wants his suit jacket back. Ditto the Four Seasons- they know you took the towels. Sleaze.

Newt Gingrich. The guy puts out good proposals faster than the rate at which a fly drools. Too bad  “right wing social engineering” wasn’t one of them. Yeah, that comment represented grace under pressure. But you can’t help liking the guy. He is articulate and cute like a cherub. I don’t know whether to pinch his cheek or ask him what Robert Morris wore to the Constitutional convention- because I won’t be asking him for marriage advice. The same way he shouldn’t be asking me for my vote. Newt is solid on the issues, articulate and knowledgable. But when he screws-up, it is usually like the Titanic, beyond repair.

Perry? I keep waiting for the guy that helped build Texas into the great job machine, low tax, bastion of freedom it unquestionably is. Anybody seen him? Because it sure doesn’t seem like he showed up at any of the a debates. Perry has been more tongue-tied than Porky Pig and less articulate than Ron Paul.  Yes, that’s an insult. This is the great savior? Hardly. Oh yeah, it’s “no fair”- right? Wait till Obama starts spending his billion dollars in campaign stash he received from global “admirers” (wink, wink). What will he do then, cry foul? Ask the referees for a replay? Please, man-up and get your head out of your behind. Borrow Trigger from the Roy Rodgers museum and get a white hat dammit. Otherwise you will end up like the Sundance Kid. Whatever did happen to him anyway?

Romney, ah yes, Romney. The guy who was governor of one of this nations bluest states. Home of the Kennedy’s. The guy who couldn’t get reelected and now cites his lack of experience as a positive. Well, at least when he compares himself to Rick Perry anyway. The guy whose socialization of heath care was cited as the model for Obamacare in “Confidence Men”.  The guy who has more positions than Jenna Jameson. Flipper? That’s an insult to the entire cetacean order.  More like Skywarp. Only faster.

And to answer your burning question; yes, anybody is better than Obama. But I just asked my dog and she is not running. However, maybe with some extra treats I can turn that around. Anybody familiar with canis lupis election law?

I wrote this blog a few years ago thinking it would one of the best ways to recall and portray the events that I lived through on September 11th 2001. It was meant to be a timeless piece that would outlive memory- which is all too often fleeting.

The title, “Things I Will Never Forget”, was perhaps half hope, half a declarative statement to my own subconscious, weeping with any recall, that September 11th 2001 was not something I wanted to forget. Ever. 

Now the years have passed, but those memories are as vivid as yesterday. I don’t need political events driven by apocryphal motives to remind me how it was that day, how I should feel now and how youth, innocence and bliss were forever trampled by forces still determined to destroy us.

•  The unrivaled clarity of that beautiful September day

•   The deafening sound of a jetliner hitting the WTC

•   The dreamlike state that occurred as I watched people blown by the blast blended and falling with jet fuel and debris

•   The war-like after effects on the ground

•   Endless acrid smoke and the burning smell of jet fuel

•   Paper, ceaseless paper, falling from the sky

- The cacophonous sound when detritus hits the ground from 100 stories; the horror as it struck the unfortunate trying to flee or help
- Absolute panic and bewilderment in the faces of those too scared to move; the comfort reassurance can bring
- Runelike sounds of screaming and sobbing from many as the situation was assessed and uncertainty became a factor
- The fulminating sound of a second airliner hitting the South Tower, combined with the blinding, effulgent light created by tons of jet fuel igniting
- Floor after floor of high rise glass shattering and the endless variegated crashing sounds of more debris
- The ghastly, unforgettable sound a person makes when they hit the ground from 100 stories; the disbelief that comes with watching such an event
- Minutes that seemed like hours, defying all time perception; planning for retreat and egress where the lives of others hung in the balance
- Exiting to absolute confusion and a multifarious, unrecognizable assortment of emanations that stung the senses
- The clamorous, booming sound of a 100 story building disintegrating and falling to earth; the panic of being far too close. The submission which comes with that realization
- Day becoming night; air becoming dirt; Divine protection and dose of luck
- Silence, stentorian silence followed by choking in the initial stages of a ghastly awakening
- The unmistakable rumble of a fighter jet shattering the day; the inexplicable hope that comes with that noise
- The unending, sustained trip home on roads seemingly devoid of life; the powerful feeling of holding those you love and never wanting to let go
- Anger that years of incompetence, inaction and meaningless interlocution permitted these events to occur
- Days of insomnia, only to be broken by a promise the perpetrators would be pursued and we would be kept safe; promises kept and unceasing loyalty
- Acceptance that things will never be the same

Let me start with the obvious. There are always a significant amount of good causes to which you can contribute your hard earned money. That is especially true when it comes to our military. If you haven’t contributed to groups such as Soldiers Angels or The Wounded Warrior Project I would ask you to put that on your “to-do” list.

But today I come to you with a small, yet relatively important appeal. I have noticed that  ArmyRanger.com is having a fundraiser. Their goal is about $4,200, which is a relatively small sum. Yet they are stuck at about the halfway point for several days now.  Your contribution will help keep their lights on and allow ARMYRANGER.com to continue functioning. Take a look around and see how they mentor, sponsor, provide important military news and advice to those who need it. Oh yeah, and there is a little Tom-Foolery in the forums. Anyway, just go to the donation box on the right side to contribute.

As conservatives we have raised thousands of dollars for other causes. I am certain we can make up this difference for a group that truly deserves our support.

If you don’t know who the Rangers are there is some good background here. But the short version is they have been in every major conflict and battle you can think of. First. Whether it was Bastogne, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan they have always “Led the Way”.

Just one footnote; I am certain the Rangers won’t mind a note of thanks. But please read their FAQ’s and post an introduction if you want to register. C’mon it’s the military, there are always rules!

One can never divine a man’s motives. Even if he reveals them unto you- are they reliable and truthful? That is a judgment call based on character. Taking this question further, if Jared Loughner was to reveal his motives- would you believe him? If your response is negative, then why would you believe the media or some internet denizen with political motive?  Furthermore, why would you lend credence to their supposition developed with an obvious pretext? Simply answer. You shouldn’t since good conclusions are the result of intellectual observations, cogitation and most importantly salient, discernible, provable facts.

Unsurprisingly, even today the media proceeds with their journalistic sine qua non of blaming those with whom they politically disagree; selectively choosing circumstances and promoting them to fit a predetermined case. Their useful idiots and political allies are less restrained- trying even harder to paint the “truth” through outright mendacity and promoting memes which are nothing but political propaganda. As of late, Congress has also been collaborating; generally demurring, snickering and pushing unpopular legislation. Like petulant children they complete this despicable, unholy liberal-evangelism alliance.

In its entirety, our situation creates a feeling of uncontrollable hopelessness and despondency. But as a response does one simply become apathetic and submit, or do you take a stand based on principal? Our history as a nation is the latter. We are not a nation of fools, malcontents and “classes”. We are a nation of one people united under a banner of freedom. A constitutional republic governed by laws and peaceful democratic process.  One that comes together in crisis to preserve the freedoms we all so dearly love and enshrine in our collective American heart. That is not a subject for debate or dissection; it is fact.

Those who disagree with political purity, who choose to create their own path based on sagacious decisions which are understood to be the peoples’ will are a rarity. They are a throwback to the salad days when one questioned and debated to ultimately represent their constituent’s desires. They do not demur to heavy handed political tactics which seek to gain unity at any cost. It is this latter goal, gaining adherence without dispute, whether propagated by the press, party or purists that is destructive. It extirpates, disenfranchises and creates severe discontent by its own undemocratic and oppressive nature.

These my friends are the conditions under which we have lived for the past several years. Governed by a party of malcontents whom, when holding all the levers of our Republic chose ideology at any cost over participative democratic process- we dissembled into historic levels of discontent. It is a precipice upon which we have arrived by their hands and actions- yet they don’t see it. Nor do they reconcile it. Even this latest tragedy has become a matter of political expediency, not, more correctly, an appeal for returning to principled unity. Our country weeps and begs for resolution.

Reasonable people disagree. Therefore as a measure of remedy we discuss, debate and negotiate to choose the democratic path upon which to proceed. We are not a nation of left, right or center. We are a singular nation of people united by constitution, common values, culture and a unique way of life that together is the called American way. It is about time we started acting like it.

I have a message for Democrats and will commence my delivery by metaphorically employing a line straight out of their Hollywood contingent; “The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end“.

Call it karma, the diabolical workings of democracy or the ghost of Article 1 (yes, that dusty old document); I really don’t care. But the schadenfreude is becoming increasingly more enjoyable as we reverse the sword of government Democrats have been poking the American people with since January 4^th 2007, and turn it back in their direction. Maxims such as “no pain, no gain” come to mind. But I digress.

In our recent midterm elections American’s resoundingly registered their anger and precisely articulated a hierarchy of grievances. Government is not working in a manner which serves the people, spending is out of control and folks want gainful employment. So as a means of redress, they have placed their faith in Republicans. This, in and of itself is a valiant, brave act given our complicity before the Barbarians broke down the gates in 2008. As a result, Republicans have been put in shackles, asked to atone for past sins and implored to gain new discipline or risk the guillotine. It is a threat or perhaps promise that should not be taken lightly. Ask Louis XVI.

I have been personally critical of our Republican leaders and questioned their conversion to the church of sagacious fiscal policy. Nonetheless, one needs to give credit when credit is due and this seems to be a step in the right direction;

“A proposed House rule granting new powers to the GOP chairman of the Budget Committee has sparked outrage from Democrats.

The proposed rule would allow the Budget Committee chairman to set spending ceilings for 2011 without a vote by the full House. By approving the rules package, the House would give authority to the new Budget panel chairman to set budget ceilings at a later time and his decision would not be subject to an up-or-down vote on the floor.

In practice, this would give power to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the incoming chairman of the panel, to impose deep spending cuts since spending bills cannot exceed the budget ceiling for the 2011 fiscal year.”

Yes, I know all the negatives against Ryan’s fiscal bona fides; he voted for TARP, The Stimulus, GM Chrysler bailouts, etc. But If anything sparks “outrage” from Democrats one has to somewhat assume it is a step in the right direction. While alternately it could simply be more flailing as the Democrat’s political death rattle progresses, only time will tell.

Overall, in essence this seems to be a very positive sign since it allows Ryan almost unilateral power over spending limits which makes him accountable- and accountability, is good. At least we know whose head to mount on a pole outside the gate if things go wrong.

Oh and bravo Mr. Boehner. I owe you dinner on my dime.

With the voter tsunami in sight, Democrats are starting to prematurely flail and flop around like fish out of water. They squeal like the Robot from Lost in Space, loudly warning young Will Robinson the coming tidal wave is filled with racist, anti-democratic, tea-bagging crazies’ intent on stealing your “rights”.

In one positive sign, it appears Democrats are done making fallacious appeals to men. Apparently that demographic has ignored their dubious tocsin and are preparing to ride the crest of this massive swell. Instead Democrats are turning to supposedly frail, exploitable and inept women with their abashed, cowardly tales. Witness this strategy;

Still, Democratic campaigns are bombarding female voters with messages about social issues on the stump and in debates, television ads, targeted phone calls and direct mail. In California’s Senate race, Sen. Barbara Boxer says Republican Carly Fiorina’s opposition to abortion would turn women into criminals, a contention the Fiorina campaign calls “outlandish.” In Colorado, Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet accuses his GOP opponent, Ken Buck, of wanting to ban common forms of birth control. Mr. Buck says he has changed his position.

Will you run and panic? Are you really that gullible and prone to short-term memory loss? Will this tripe dissuade you from joining the ranks of those ready to ride the crest and move forward successfully with the tide? Certainly, it will not if you have been paying attention to how your family has suffered under the reign of Democrats. In reflection, isn’t this all ultimately a bit, well, insulting?

Since it is close to Halloween, let me list a few “scary” names. Carly Fiorina, Sharon Angle, Michele Bachmann, Christine O’Donnell, Meg Whitman, Kristi Noem, Linda McMahon and Nikki Haley.  Oooh, very scary indeed. Frankly, I can think of very few things more frightening than articulate, smart and capable women, some of whom have run multi-million dollar companies. But for more horror, read the candidates’ positions on social issues which are clearly listed on their websites if you dare. But keep in mind what Mark Twain said “..that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.”

Retrospectively, I would ask; “where are all the women Democrats who have spent endless hours since 2007 protecting your rights and shrinking our dependence on government?” Ok, let’s rephrase the question. Name all Democrats, irrespective of gender, that have immersed themselves in women’s issues since 2007? Queue the Crickets. Oh and if you feel like me after that cogitation, go ahead and take a shower.

Will you remember how you feel today, 8 months from now? That seems to be a significant amount of time to test one’s memory or understand the perdurability of specific emotions. Certainly, an almost reflexive response is to say, yes, I will definitely recall how angry, sad, helpless or uneasy I feel- irrespective of the amount of time that passes. But, is that firmly based prognostication? Perhaps you are simply lost in the moment and unable to see the future? After all, much can happen in 8 months- let’s reflect;

• In 8 months, one could go from being childless to being within days of being a parent- provided you respect life
• In 8 months, your perspective could go from being almost hopeless and desperate to rejuvenated and optimistic
• In 8 months, the long-shot can promise to deliver the world, obfuscate the facts and become the front-runner
• In 8 months, hope can become hopeless and bad can get worse

Perspective is often fleeting and changeable. It is comparative to suffused Fall foliage crumbling into a desolate Winter and then returning as rejuvenated Spring blossoms. It can often emancipate the gamut of human emotions and obscure or supplant memories. Reflect on this- can you remember the rustic smells of Fall and appreciate their chroma as a multiplicity of Spring floral bouquets wafts on a warm zephyr and tingles your senses? It seems a distant memory- doesn’t it?

Some will pillage these human vulnerabilities as a despicable tactic to steal, obfuscate and distort your perspective. They will hide the obvious in plain sight and dismiss it as a meaningless mirage or distorted, overblown or parochial vista. They call, and will continue to call the illogical and destructive transformation “change” despite the overwhelming and obvious deformities. Will you believe it? Will you lose trust of your own senses, judgment, reason and intellectual observation in the face of contrary facts?  I certainly hope not and am reminded of Kipling;

Our Fathers in a wondrous age,

Ere yet the Earth was small,

Ensured to us a heritage,

And doubted not at all                  

That we, the children of their heart,

Which then did beat so high,

In later time should play like part

For our posterity

As Mr. Obama announced his new “bogeyman” to “turn public attention away from what they’re doing wrong in the administration” he sunk one of the few healthy sectors left in our economy, financial services. Over the past two days, the Dow Industrials took a loss of about 335 points, largely from the banking sector.

Clearly, Mr. Obama is seeking to use populist rhetoric as a deflection for recent Democrat electoral losses and the growing unpopularity of his administration. This is one of the few plausible explanations for his curiously timed speech yesterday. That is an especially salient point considering the House Financial Services Committee has for some time now been in the process of examining various related reforms. Witness Chairman Barney Frank’s statement yesterday;

“I welcome the President’s strong support for additional provisions in the financial reform legislation to address the too big to fail problem. The President’s initiatives build on provisions that originated in the House Financial Services Committee and were included in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which passed the House on December 11.”

Mr. Obama’s actions are also vexing since it was the banking sector that was largely forced to take support from the government. I can advise from accounts provided to me personally, that several other institutions including Wells Fargo and Bank of America did not want TARP money, but were cajoled into taking it. Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis lost his job for exposing this heavy handed, double dealing. That was his reward for building one of the most profitable companies in America. Now Mr. Obama wants to go back to the well and grab some more scalps. The problem is, our populace now has a growing disaffection with Mr. Obama and Democrats. They want action, not rhetoric which brings us to Mr. McCain. From today’s Wall Street Journal article;

“But in a political environment decidedly hostile to big banks, Democrats might need only a few Republican votes to enact a variant of what Mr. Obama called “the Volcker rule.” Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, said the White House appears to be moving closer to a proposal he is co-sponsoring that would reinstate restrictions on banks that were repealed in the late 1990s. “It seems to me that a number of the proposals [Mr. Obama] has move in that direction,” Sen. McCain said, “but I haven’t had a chance to examine the details.”

Message to Sarah Palin; you want to campaign for Mr. McCain’s reelection because….?

The Obama Administrations efforts to dismantle our post 9-11 security measures continued today with the issuance of visas for two terrorism suspects. Hillary Clinton has allowed Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib, previously suspected of having terrorist links, to enter the United States;

“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has signed orders enabling the re-entry of professors Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University in England and Adam Habib of the University of Johannesburg in South Africa when they obtain required admittance documents, department spokesman Darby Holladay said.

Mrs. Clinton “has chosen to exercise her exemption authority for the benefit of Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib,” Mr. Holladay said. “We’ll let that action speak for itself.”

Yes, we will. That Mrs. Clinton is directly involved in this move provides a special irony to those affected by 9-11. That is based largely on her husband’s various actions or lack of action which directly provided terrorist the ability to perpetrate those attacks.

This case has been the darling of ACLU and other left wing supporters of Mr. Obama for some time now. All along those groups and now the Obama Administration have chosen to ignore the more salient, factual information available, in particular as it relates to Tariq Ramadan. Here is just a small recitation;

“In an interview with French newsmagazine Le Point, Ramadan evoked what he called the ‘interventions of New York, Bali or Madrid.’ So, September 11 was not a terrorist attack, it was rather just an ‘intervention.’ Of course, nowhere in this interview did Ramadan condemn terrorism. (snip)

Ramadan’s links to terrorism are multiple: In 1995, in the midst of a series of terrorist attacks in Paris orchestrated by the GIA — the Algerian Islamist terrorist movement – Jean Louis Debre, French Interior Minister, forbade Ramadan entrance to France because of his links to the Algerian terrorist group.”

This was announced at the State Department daily briefing, which apparently the press and Mr. Crowley felt was funny;

“QUESTION: Okay, I misheard. The second one – Tariq Ramadan visa, he is allowed to apply for one now; is that so? Also Adam Habib? What’s the rationale and would he be granted a visa if he applied?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the Secretary of State signed an exemption for Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib. Her authority comes from Section 212(d)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. With those exemptions in place, the next time Professor Ramadan or Professor Habib applies for a visa, he will not be found inadmissible on the basis of the facts that led to denial when he last applied. Good guidance done by a good lawyer. <b>(Laughter.)</b>

Without going into very specifics on visa applications, I think the Secretary’s view is that these individuals who have applied for visas in the past – and they have been denied in the past – as we look at it, we do not think that either one of them represents a threat to the United States. And now, should they apply for a visa, they will still be subject to the other standards that apply to anyone who applies for a visa to come to the United States. But in the Secretary’s judgment, and consistent with President Obama’s outreach to the – to Muslims around the world, we want to encourage a global debate. We want to have the opportunity potentially to have Islamic scholars come to the United States and have dialogue with other faith communities and people here in our country.

QUESTION: Just because the – your wording was so precise there, I just want to make sure that – so you’re saying those two grounds for which they were denied no longer apply?

MR. CROWLEY: We – I mean, well – yes.”

Yes. We are laughing at the hilarity of it all.

Update to an obvious question: Erick notes that he supports anyone “as long as the last name isn’t Greer.”

As Erick noted, rumors abound that Charlie Crist is dropping out of the US Senate race. Frankly, if you can’t win your home county, that is probably a good decision. Nonetheless, If eventually found to be true, this is good news not just for conservatives, but for Floridians. Mr. Crist’s record on fiscal matters is poor and his state has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation. He has supported a number of positions including Barack Obama’s “stimulus” which have worked against the interests of his constituents and obfuscated conservative principles he purports to support. In an attempt to win support and appeal to fiscal conservatives, Mr. Crist has recently engaged in politically motivated flailing such as restoring the “school sales tax holiday”, which he refused to support for the last two years.

But there is another tempest brewing in the Florida GOP. State party chairman Jim Greer, who was appointed by Charlie Crist, is retiring before being ousted by the party and a race for his seat has begun. Greer has been an embarrassment to the party for many reasons and his “retirement” is largely welcomed by conservative party members.

There are currently three candidates in the running to replace Greer; former Florida House Speaker Jim Thrasher, Sharon Day and Mark Cross. Who is Charlie Crist’s choice? House Speaker Jim Thrasher. Which leads to the following quote from Pasco GOP committee member Bill Bunting;

“If you look at the people supporting Thrasher, these are all the same people who supported Greer,” said Pasco GOP committee member Bill Bunting, who is supporting Republican National Committee member Sharon Day of Fort Lauderdale for chairwoman.

For months, the governor had urged Greer to stand firm as chairman, but legislative leaders helped persuade him to embrace Thrasher as a successor. It underscores how much the governor’s influence has ebbed in the party.”

Do Floridians and the party really want Charlie Crist’s hand-picked successor? Does the party want to continue supporting Charlie Crist’s policies through political proxies which have diluted basic Republican principles? Will the GOP lead be taken by a House Speaker who has helped produce a projected 2010 budget gap of $6.0 billion? Rhetorically, I would say the answer is no.

I don’t have a dog in this race, other than to say it is not Thrasher. Who do you endorse? Let the Florida GOP know.

Update on another obvious question; I called Marco Rubio’s office. They are not currently endorsing anyone and apparently don’t plan to.

Well the wheels of government are indeed turning, but apparently Democrats didn’t realize they turn in both directions. Apparently, citizens have discovered there are ways to fight back against corrupt congressional members. It is an age old device aptly named the recall (via The American Thinker);

“The blog And So It Goes in Shreveport notes that a petition to recall Senator Mary Landrieu has been accepted for filing by the Louisiana Secretary of State. Citizens have 180 days to file enough signatures to get this on a ballot”

The case for her recall can be seen here courtesy of the Louisiana Tea Party Federation, you know those freedom loving citizens characterized as Nazi and every other slur by the Democrats. A good deal of the basis has to do with Mary’s Obamacare Louisiana Purchase and a link to her brother’s mayoral campaign (more on that here).

This effort was characterized as laughable when their argument was first assembled. But who is laughing now? I would guess Mary isn’t.

Yes, I paraphrased that title from Thomas Jefferson but believed it relevant to our current circumstances. That is not hyperbole, it is an undeniable fact.

We now stand on the precipice of our governments largest, unwarranted and irresponsible expansions in generations. This egregious assault on individual liberty is being driven by ideology and accomplished through grotesquely secret, undemocratic negotiations. It is being driven by a Democratic Party unconcerned with your resolute, majority disagreement. They are using your tax dollars to pay off supporters in other states. Is this the product of a republican democracy? Boldly, I believe Jefferson and the other framers would disagree. Do you?

Are you angry? Rhetorically, you should be. Let me rephrase the aforementioned paragraph for clarity. Our government is using your tax dollars, against your will to steal your individual liberty. Democrats are taking control of life and death decisions currently yours by betraying the trust you placed in them. That is worse than any direct tyranny which would at least beget resolute, direct action. Their actions make you feel helpless as they use the process of government to envelope us in the yoke of soft tyranny. But are you helpless? Hardly.

This is YOUR government, not theirs. Our republic is underwritten by a Constitution whose basic precepts, to which they swore to adhere, are immutable. So what do we do? Remove them. What? You say the elections are not until November and we have no prayer until then.

Wrong.

Our framers created this republic to be perdurable by using many checks and balance. To my friends in Massachusetts, one of our original colonies, I would remind you there is a choice and you are not powerless. Elect Scott Brown. He is the only person standing between you and this contemporary tyranny. To my friends outside the state, let’s make up the funding gap by contributing to an important campaign.

Are the odds long? Yes. But that is a position Americans have been in time and again throughout our history. Be true to our collective values and don’t surrender.

Elections are ultimately about trust. So will you, the owners of this government, trust these temporary stewards to continue representing you, stealing our liberty and obfuscating our Constitution? Well, if polls and the recent departure of Democrat representatives from reelection contests are indicatives, the firm answer is no. They are feeling the heat. Never surrender. Never.

First, an often dismissed and sometimes forgotten fact; Democrats, including Mr. Obama had a majority in Congress two years prior to the last Presidential election. Now, if you believe having a majority in Congress is somehow an overrated and irrelevant actuality, one might think you have not been paying attention lately as Democrats pillage the countryside. But putting this aside for a moment, let’s focus only on the past year as the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform did;

“Over the past year alone, the public debt of the United States rose sharply from 41 to 53 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Under reasonable assumptions, the debt is projected to grow steadily, reaching 85 percent of GDP by 2018, 100 percent by 2022, and 200 percent in 2038.

However, before the debt reached such high levels, the United States would almost certainly experience a debt-driven crisis-something previously viewed as almost unfathomable in the world’s largest economy. The crisis could unfold gradually or it could happen suddenly, but with great costs either way. The tipping point is impossible to predict, but the United States is already hearing concerns about its fiscal management from some of its largest creditors, and the country is uncomfortably vulnerable to shifts in confidence around the world.”

The co-chairs of this committee are Bill Frenzel, Charlie Stenholm and Tim Penny. The remaining committee members represent a respectable, bipartisan group of experts and virtual “Who’s Who” in their professions. So as Democrats try to double-down and force a financially crippling government takeover of your healthcare, consider this;

“The 2009 budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, almost 10 percent of GDP. The public debt grew 31 percent from $5.8 trillion to $7.6 trillion. And the total debt, which includes what the government has borrowed from itself, grew from almost $10 trillion to $11.9 trillion.”

And this is before even figuring the cost of healthcare hidden by a cornucopia of budget gimmicks. As noted by former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin;

“The Reid bill is already a fiscal train wreck thinly disguised by every budget gimmick in the Democratic repertoire. The taxes start in 2010, but the entitlement in 2014. Doctors’ Medicare fees are presumed to fall by more than 20 percent beginning in 2011. Hospitals and other providers would get less than inflation increases in their annual payment updates – forever. None of these assumptions stand up to the slightest scrutiny. And when the entire middle class gets on the subsidy gravy train, federal costs will soar.”

Something we worry about constantly in the US Treasury debt markets is that a freefalling dollar will drive people away from that class of securities. This occurrence generally results in paying a higher interest rate to attract buyers and ultimately manifests itself through a host of negative economic impacts which the commission identifies;

“Without a dramatic shift in course, the debt will grow to unprecedented levels, breaking the 200 percent mark in 2038. Well before the debt approaches such startling heights, fears of inflation and a prospective decline in the value of the dollar would cause investors to demand higher interest rates and shift out of U.S. Treasury securities. The excessive debt would also affect citizens in their everyday lives by harming the American standard of living through slower economic growth and dampening wages, and shrinking the government’s ability to reduce taxes, invest, or provide a safety net.”

The Democratic Congress and President have us on an economic train-wreck due to their pursuit of ideological policies over fiscal common sense. Our current, unprecedented level of spending is irresponsible, has nothing to do with a sagacious economic response and spells certain fiscal disaster. Continuing such policies will make today’s “crisis” look like a minor hiccup on the road to financial oblivion. Let’s hope Democrats don’t get the chance and some sanity is restored to our economic policy through deliberate, responsible, conservative fiscal action.

“Something to go with that pile of taxpayer cash, Mr. Congressman, sir?” Well, yes I think the Mexican Sensimilla would go just fine. Seems like a farcical introduction that would otherwise get one in hot water on this site, doesn’t it? But alas, it is just one potential scenario that would play out if the latest piece of comical legislation from Democrats on Capital Hill comes to light. No. Really. Here’s a brief snippet;

“Yesterday, the U.S. Senate passed the omnibus spending bill of $1.1 trillion, loaded with earmarks and spending for government agencies, while this week the House will likely vote to raise the debt ceiling – and Virginia’s Democratic lawmakers went right along for the ride.

The 1,088-page package contains over 5,000 earmarks, including provisions to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, as well as provisions to allow taxpayer funded abortions and the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia.

Emphasis mine of course. So as the Democrat “Fat Cats” in Washington roll around piles containing trillions of our hard earned cash, the smell of ink is apparently not seductive enough. Now they want to also roll themselves some of the funny stuff- as if we didn’t think they were already doing that. Oh and don’t get to excited if this is your type of thing. It’s only for Washington DC.

Nothing would distract the taxpayers more than to get them walking around oblivious to the governmental destruction taking place in Washington. I suppose next they will try to impose a lower federally mandated drinking age, since Democrats are losing that demographic also.

Yes, but they are doing the peoples work.

PS: I had to look up the aforementioned reference.

It’s bad enough my professional duties require I subscribe to the House Committee on Financial Services emails, especially with this current crop of occupants. But getting regular emails from Chairman Frank is perhaps discussion for another time (during Happy Hour when no one would be psychologically damaged by the sub-conscious images). Anyway, in my humble, non-legal opinion they just violated The Hatch Act with this particular email intended to propagate their DNC talking points on the economy.

Following President Obama’s lead, Democrats in Congress have obviously pulled out their old “I am with Stupid” tee-shirts as an attempt to deflect attention from their own disastrous handling of the economy and historically high unemployment. But wait, the Stimulus will fix all that; really. We just need “Stimulus Two” in order to round the numbers off by a few trillion.

It’s not enough Democrats have indebted our children and grandchildren, they now are going for generations that will probably drive cars which fly through the air fueled by water.

However, back to the email from address Press-2003@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV Here is some of the text;

“For Immediate Release:

December 10, 2009

Republican Response to the Worst Financial Meltdown since the Great Depression: “What, There’s a Problem?”

For eight years, President Bush and his Republican allies looked the other way as Wall Street and big banks exploited loopholes, ignored growing problems and, as a result, did not protect America’s families and small businesses.  Even today, after millions of Americans have lost their jobs and taxpayers have been forced to bailout Wall Street, Republicans continue to deny that there is a problem. Instead, Republican leader John Boehner, Republican Whip Eric Cantor, and the rest of the Republican Party can be found on Capitol Hill begging Washington lobbyists to kill a bill that would finally bring accountability and integrity back to our financial system.

Now, the Republicans have offered a substitute bill, an alternative to H.R. 4173 that does virtually nothing to address the causes leading to last year’s financial crisis.  In fact, the Republican “alternative” wholly rejects the notion that Wall Street should be held accountable or that consumers need more protections from deceptive banks and greedy lenders. If the Republican plan passes, it will mean business as usual on Wall Street, and it will increase the likelihood of more taxpayer bailouts.”

Gee, sure sounds political to me? How about you? Is this an effective, non political use of government resources that is in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation? I think not there Sparky. Tons of factual errors too- how embarrassing.

MR. Obama “admonished” Republican’s today for “frightening” the American people. Let’s leave aside for the moment I have no idea how he defines “frighten”. Perhaps he just said, “shame on you, telling the American people the truth while I, your President, is trying to sell ethereal jobs saved nonsense and giving nice, fluffy speeches on unemployment”. Hail Caesar.

By the way, one of the White House staffers should tell Mr. Obama he is holding the unemployment chart upside down. It’s simply the right thing to do.

In a prelude to the mother of all job killers yet to come; Mr. Obama’s EPA just killed 500 jobs at West Virginia coal company CONSOL. Merry Christmas, from the man who actually does not believe in traditionally celebrating the holiday. Here is a snippet of their press release;

“To put it into human terms, we are talking about the jobs of nearly 500 of our employees at the Fola Operations, and the impact such legal interpretations will have on their quality of life and that of their families,” DeIuliis noted, adding that for each job in coal mining, several additional support jobs are adversely affected.”

“It is unfortunate that, at a time when reliable and affordable energy is so desperately needed to reinvigorate our economy, that the nation’s energy industries are coming under repeated assault from nuisance lawsuits and appeals of environmental regulations,” said Nicholas J. DeIuliis, CONSOL Energy executive vice president and chief operating officer. “It is CONSOL Energy’s policy to operate our coal and gas assets safely and within the framework of the laws regulating our industry, but we oppose any efforts to use them to unnecessarily impede our ability to sustain our operations.

Never mind the business community has already said the Co2 ruling will be another Obama job killer. The finding actually is starting to have the ring of another “Climate Gate” type scandal and the “science” (quotes intentional) used for the EPA ruling is being seriously brought into question and needs additional scrutiny.

Ah, but who actually believes the polls anyway.

Much has been said about the President’s speech on Afghanistan and some of it was very surprising. To give one primary example, Karl Rove’s piece in the WSJ last week was curiously vexing even in title.

Labeled “Obama can Win in Afghanistan”, its appellation begged an immediate sub conscious retort- “but does Obama want to win”?

Nonetheless, Mr. Rove perfectly framed the antipathetic Obama argument in his first few paragraphs;

“President Barack Obama’s speech on Tuesday night deserves to be cheered. Over the objections of his vice president and despite opposition from his political base, the president is sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to fight terrorists.

But praise for Mr. Obama’s decision needs to be qualified. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, had said he could use as many as 40,000 troops, a figure he arrived at after carefully evaluating what would be needed to accomplish the mission Mr. Obama assigned him in June.”

Therein those few sentences lies the primary danger and fallacy of Mr. Obama’s approach. Fully knowing for months what was being requested by his commanders Mr. Obama, the same man who has tried to erase the phrase “Global War on Terror“, opted for a political solution over the precise, deliberate plan of his military. By refusing the full troop contingent requested by General McCrystal, and setting a deadline for withdrawal that seems more attuned to political cycles than military objectives, Mr. Obama has shown a poker hand that not only includes Jokers but is clearly an attempt to bluff congressional “conservatives” into thinking he has a flush.

In fairness, Mr. Rove does not provide unqualified support for the President; although his opinion seems to be more aligned with the predicable Pavlovian political patronage for which Mr. Obama was angling. Witness that accepting such terms is not only a dangerous move insomuch that it fails to recognize tactical timelines required to mobilize that number of personnel safely into the Afghanistan Theater. It also relies on a number that is fully one-fourth less than the general requested.

Even the casual observer of military planning realizes that not complying with very carefully calculated requests, such as General McCrystal’s, has its repercussions. All too often this manifests itself through an increased number of casualties- something over the past several months of dithering Mr. Obama appears extraordinarily indifferent to.

This shortfall is of course alleged to be covered by Mr. Obama’s decree that our “allies” will pick up the slack. That action obviously can’t be counted on and is something ISAF (especially the Europeans) have been very reluctant to do thus far as Sally McNamara very precisely documents. In addition, any person familiar with the Afghanistan ISAF situation knows that our troops will be doing most of the heavy lifting and suffering the majority of casualties.

Summarily this leads us to dangerously ask; “whose war is this, anyway?” That such questions even bear recitation tells us the focus and spirit of our efforts is now grossly misconstrued, obfuscated or on the verge of becoming a lost political cause upon which Mr. Obama’s Administration will try to gain their war credentials. So once again grotesque parochial posturing will be paid for by those who dedicate themselves to action, not the political class who build temples to themselves. Have we seen this movie before? Rhetorically, yes- the most recent political manifestation occurring with President Clinton and his congressional legions directly proceeding September 11^th, 2001.

In an Afghanistan policy speech filled with half measures designed more as an appeal to politics than common sense, Mr. Obama failed miserably on many levels. But the oratory was far more remarkable in revealing the modus operandi an Alinskyite uses to stoke and redirect the passions of an increasingly belligerent public.

Remembering that there always needs to be someone else to envy or defile, it was eminently clear the Bush presidency will continue to be Mr. Obama’s ubiquitous excuse, and cover for his own continued lack of leadership and sagacious policy. It was also simultaneously and ironically evident the conviction with which our nations business has been addressed is also certainly a distant memory. Gone are the days when our military apparatus and intelligence community will be given tools necessary to defeat an enemy who finds new ways to attack us.

We have been invaded by the second wave containing detestable enemies such as Major Hassan- eager to slip comfortably through the safety net and into the soft liberal woven fabric of political correctness and endless amnesty for what would otherwise be labeled as malevolent, dangerous behavior. The press is afraid to call this as such and remind our public that similar danger was averted for years under their nemesis and Mr. Obama’s predecessor; for it would mortally wound their collective conquering hero.

Nonetheless, this may unfortunately presage the return of terrorist attacks and like suffering, led this time by Mr. Obama and his legion of ideologues. It will also be the commencement of a trying time for our military, their families and supporters as they once again, under another Democrat led rebellion, carry the burden of contra-intellectual, anti libertarian catharsis on their shoulders.

Win? I don’t believe that is part of the plan at all. More like a new war on two fronts.

Strange discussions seem to be flowing across the intelligence wires and  Threats Watch has the recon via Memri Blog;

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement’s foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

I suppose Mr. Obama’s contention that he is examining all avenues of strategy in Afghanistan is true after all. Perhaps we misjudged the man? Oddly, who would have thought that surrender was one of those avenues. My guess is that wasn’t one of the options General McCrystal thought of.

Let’s dispense up front with the potential platitudes, supportive arguments and sundry “feel-good” comments. John McCain is an honorable man who admirably served our country and should be lauded for that valiant societal contribution. From my perspective that is an unquestionable accoutrement to the larger debate about Mr. McCain’s contribution to our party. With respect to the latter issue, Mr. McCain is an abysmal failure and has arguably more to do with our parties’ identity crisis than any other member in recent history.

Mr. McCain’s role and damaging posture are not really all that hard to understand. “Maverick” as he fancies being called, is more impressed with his own ideas for the party than anyone else’s. The self proclaimed acolyte of Reagan somewhere along the line forgot some of the “Gipper’s” endless teachings. Those would be the one’s focused on articulating our values and making the case for conservatism with those whom we may disagree. If memory serves me correctly, Mr. Reagan never said somewhat conversely, surrender your values for the sake of agreement- a posture which seems to follow Mr. McCain’s career. In this particular regard, Mr. McCain has been shamefully destructive and more endeared with the sound of his own voice rather than the philosophical calling of our party.

Do I blame Mr. McCain for some of the current morass and fundamental undermining of our society which now emanates from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue? The rhetorical answer is a resounding- yes. His misguided quest for the presidency was simply a culmination of innumerable self-indulgent actions which started many years ago. The coupe de grace was his poorly attempted caricature of someone who embodied Republican values, which he spent years destroying. It is no small wonder or vexing philosophical conundrum why the voting public chose to elect a man with no experience, specific vision and questionable political values. The alternative was John McCain, who has largely forgotten the philosophical code by which we conservatives live and more appropriately resembles Don Quixote de La Mancha than any party leader or potential president.

Mr. McCain’s controversies and faux pas are probably more identifiable to the public than any of his alleged qualifications to be our parties’ candidate for President. The Gang of 14 which cost conservatives good judicial candidates and upheld unconstitutional filibusters, McCain- Feingold- much have which has been found unconstitutional, endorsing amnesty as a primary means of addressing immigration, originally opposing the Bush tax cuts, opposing the repeal of Estate Taxes, extending the Geneva Conventions to enemy non-combatants, closing Guantanamo Bay, pointing fingers at the “religious right”, originally supporting the offshore drilling ban and years of generally being the liberal media darling.  Show of hands; how many held their noses to vote for Mr. McCain simply because the alternative was so (now proven to be true) unthinkable and destructive? Wow, too many to count.

So some free advice to Mr. McCain; take a back seat and stop saying you represent our party. Stop allegedly working on our behalf based on some imagined credibility you gained as our last presidential candidate. News flash- we ended up with no really good choices. Our mission is now to ensure that does not happen again. It is also to restore our image back to one which resembles the collective “we” rather than a party which is a cheap imitator of the opposition led by you.