Friday, February 29, 2008

Leap Day - February 29th

From Wikipedia:
February 29 is a date that occurs only every four years, in years evenly divisible by 4, such as 1988, 1996, 2008 or 2016 (with the exception of century years not divisible by 400, such as 1900) for the Gregorian calendar, which is most widely used in the world today. These are called leap years, and February 29 is the 60th day of the Gregorian calendar in such a year, with 306 days remaining until the end of that year. February 29 is also known as bissextile day or Leap Day.

From :

bis·sex·tile (bī-sěk'stĭl, -stīl', bĭ-)


Of or relating to a leap year.
Of or relating to the extra day falling in a leap year.

n. A leap year.

So this date, February 29th, comes about only every four years. It’s a kind of special occasion. And for folks born on this date it’s a rather unusual thing - their birth date comes around only every fourth year. Sort of like using an Earth calendar while living on Mars. Or vice-versa.

Today is the Leap Day. So enjoy it. Or not. Just figured you’d want a reminder.


Thursday, February 28, 2008

Sarah Palin For VP: Maverick & Maverick?

“I respect our military personnel and understand the importance of Alaska's National Guard. As I watched our military men and women being deployed I recognized how important it is for their families to know how much Alaska and America support them.” - Sarah Palin

Sarah PalinSarah Palin is the incumbent Governor of Alaska and former Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. A Journalist, she is the first Governor of Alaska born after Alaska was granted statehood. She took office at the age of 42, making her the youngest Governor in Alaska's short history, as well as the first woman Governor.

Palin's oldest child, and only son, Track, joined the Army in 2007, at the age of 18. Palin also has three daughters, Bristol, Piper, and Willow, who live at home in Wasilla. Husband Todd is a commercial fisherman. Sarah Palin has a Bachelor's degree in Journalism from the University of Idaho, and is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association.
“I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska's youth […]” - Sarah Palin

Some of her political imagery comes from her private life. When marijuana was still legal in Alaska - a true maverick state! - she admits she tried it, but didn't like it. One wonders just how good or bad Alaskan Gold is. She eats mooseburgers, and rides snowmobiles.

Sarah Palin's nice gams
Gov. Sarah Palin responds to a question in her downtown Anchorage office next to a grizzly her father shot in Denali Highway country. - photo by STEPHEN NOWERS / Anchorage Daily News

Palin's political career began with two terms on the Wasilla City Council, then was elected Mayor for two terms. She was elected President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. From Wiki:
In 2002, Palin made a failed bid to become the state's lieutenant governor, coming in second place behind Loren Leman in a four-way race, some say due to her inability to raise campaign contributions equal to that of her opponents. After Frank Murkowski became governor, resigning from his long-time U.S. Senate seat, Palin was considered by some to be a candidate for that job; however Murkowski appointed his daughter, then State Representative Lisa Murkowski.

Governor Murkowski did appoint Palin to serve as a commissioner on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission which she served on during 2003–2004, but later resigned, in protest over what she perceived to be the "lack of ethics" of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders. This included the state party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, a fellow commissioner, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time and providing a sensitive email to a lobbyist. She filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former state Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who was eventually found not guilty.

Hmmm, spunky and ethical! No wonder the MSM ignores her while deifying Oprah and Hillary. A Republican takes on the Republican Party, and it ain't the MSM's favorite Maverick, John McCain, but a woman in Alaska. But the Republican Party had a small comeuppance coming.

Palin campaigningIn 2006 Palin took on the sitting Republican Governor Frank "Bridge To Nowhere" Murkowski in the Republican Primaries. She beat the party and Murkowski. Then she went on to the general election and whipped the former Governor, Tony Knowles, by 8 percentage points in a six-candidate race. Her plurality was 48%+. How many times have we sat back and groaned as the Party went out of its way to shove good candidates aside to protect lousy, incumbent Republicans in their re-election bids? Well, Palin fought them, beat them, and then beat the Democrat. And it turns out she has been so good as Governor that, in July 2007, Palin was heralded in the national media as being the most popular governor in the country, with an approval rating often in the 90s. An August 2007 poll had her approval rating at 84%, with 5% disapproving. Wonder who disapproved? Democrats, no doubt, wishing for a bigger government and more handouts.

Wanna talk about a Maverick? Sarah Palin supports moving the Legislative sessions out of Juneau - the state Capital - on occasion. She also pushes sending the state's wealth back down to the municipalities. Which, of course, is where that wealth came from in the first place. This is Municipal Revenue Sharing, something the National Football League uses a form of to keep smaller teams in smaller cities afloat. And after all, the locals know far better what is needed in their town than some elected twit in the Capital. I know that's political Heresy to the Left, but it's a fact nevertheless. Palin seems to understand that a government's wealth comes only from taking it from those who actually worked for it. Governments do not make money, nor do they create wealth. Ever. They consume it, ravenously, if allowed.

Maverick? When Palin was elected Governor, she decided Juneau had seen enough inaugurations. She moved the ceremonies to Fairbanks, Alaska. Imagine the President of the United States being inaugurated in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania rather than in Washington, D.C. Where would all those Big Wigs and government muckety-mucks stay? And just who would they impress? I like Palin's idea. Maybe we ought to try it one of these days for the President's inauguration, eh?

Sarah Palin is not immune to the disease of government meddling in things economic. And she did not come out looking good. Again, from Wiki:
Gov. Palin received widespread criticism for her handling of Matanuska Maid Dairy, a state owned dairy. When the State Dairy Board recommend the closing of the unprofitable state owned business, Palin fired the board and appointed long-time MATSU Borough associates to run the board, including influential real estate businesswoman Kristan Cole. The new board quickly approved raising the price of milk offered by the dairy in a vain attempt to control hemorrhaging fiscal losses and despite the fact that milk from the state of Washington was already offered in Alaska for much less the Mat Maid milk. In the end the dairy was forced to close and the state tried to sell the assets to pay for its huge debts, but because the initial minimum asking price was set too high no bids were received.
I hope she understands that government is not the answer to every problem. She does seem to.
“As Mayor and CEO of the booming city of Wasilla, my team invited investment and encouraged business growth by eliminating small business inventory taxes, eliminated personal property taxes, reduced real property tax mill levies every year I was in office, reduced fees, and built the infrastructure our businesses needed to grow and prosper.” - Sarah Palin

Palin did sign into law Alaska's largest operating budget ever, but also used her veto pen to make the second largest cuts ever, in the state's construction budget.

As the Murkowski Administration came to a close he appointed his Chief of Staff, Jim Clark, to the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority. Shortly after her inauguration, Palin tossed Clark off the Authority. In Murkowski's closing days he okayed the building of an eleven-mile-long gravel road to a mine outside Juneau. Palin scrapped that. Although it took a few years, Palin finally managed to sell the jet Murkowski bought for the state - with state money, of course - on eBay. That was one of her campaign promises. And she kept it.

Palin tours the Bunker Hill

Can you imagine her as a Commander in Chief? Touring the Bunker Hill.

As for the Social Values voters in conservative America, here's more Wiki:
Palin is strongly pro-life and belongs to Feminists for Life. She opposes same-sex marriage, but has gay friends and has otherwise been receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination. While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin followed an Alaska Supreme Court order and signed them into law.

She supports a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter. Alaska was one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.

Palin's first veto was used on legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners. In effect, her veto granted State benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with her attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.
I don't particularly care for that last part. State Benefits are just a way of redistributing wealth. If same-sex couples need benefits they should pay for them. I pay for mine. My folks pay for their's. And there is such a thing as a Will. Gays should learn to write them and use them rather than seek governmental approval of their lifestyle. Contracts are binding. Write up a contract, people! *sigh* Rant over.

Palin unveils Alaska Quarter design

Now you know something about Sarah Palin, Republican Governor of Alaska, and fair-to-middling conservative. I hope she's on John McCain's short-list as a Vice Presidential running mate. Let's hope we don't see a replay of the 1980 Republican Party trying to shoehorn in Gerald Ford as Ronald Reagan's VP running mate/co-presidential candidate (since the Party knew that Reagan couldn't win the election on his own. Have we learned anything, Republicans?). Enough of the old Party garbage. Let's put the old Pols to bed. Maybe Palin isn't the perfect VP candidate, but she's proven electoral candidate, she has managed a growing city and a growing State. And she's smart, bold, brave, ... and a Maverick!

Sarah Palin for Vice President of the United States of America!

Sarah Palin at
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin For VP?
Palin meets with McCain to talk about Pork
Que Sarah, Sarah
Sarah Palin for VP
Draft Sarah Palin For Vice President

Palin on the Political GraphAccording to VoteMatchQuiz, Palin is a Moderate Populist Conservative.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

A Lazy Blogger Catches Up?

I've been remiss lately in my blogging - that means negligent, careless, or slow in performing one's duty, to those of you who are products of today's modern school system! - using my online time to read the blogs of others and enjoy their insights. There hasn't seemed to be much use in my adding my two cents to what's been going on out there. I've also been noodling a work-in-progress which has bedeviled me for a while. I'm working on a Young Adult Science Fiction novel. It's fun, but it's also a pain when it isn't working.

Science Fiction ArtWriters know what I mean. When the story is presenting itself to you the writing is almost automatic. When the story is quiet and you can't 'see' it, it's a constant struggle. This is not Writer's Block. I have written part of a Round Robin short story at Writer's Village University, and am joining another as we speak (write? Read? Whatever!), so I have no block. But there are portions of the story that have yet to appear in my mind's eye. And that makes the writing of the story difficult. So I tinker, do some research, play with dialogue - working out dialogue while pushing a dust-mop through a store can get you some very odd looks - and generally plug along. Right now, though, I have four novels in various stages of writing. None is close to completion. I am a very lazy writer, indeed! Or a very confused one.

For those of you who want to know what I've been thinking about the elections, so far, you must know that I supported Fred Thompson very early - June of 2007, to be exact - and was disappointed when he got in late and went nowhere. I moved on to Mitt Romney, but he collapsed as well. So I am supporting McCain. I am enough of a realist to know that you can't always get your 'druthers. McCain is who we have left, on the "Right", and if you think you can sit out the 2008 elections and remain 'pure-of-heart' you are an idiot. Sorry, but that's how it works.

John McCainSit out this election to 'teach the Republican Party a lesson' and you will redo the 2006 elections with staggeringly worse results. Feel free to turn over the Head of State of America to the Party of Communism Light, but don't expect me to pay any attention to your whining about it in a year's time. Now is the time to get off your self-righteous buttocks and get out the vote. McCain may not be any of our first - or second! - choice, but he's light-years better than the two Dems careening down the Pike.

Hillary and BarackUnsure of who Hillary Clinton is? Wake up! Just Google her and look at the real history of this harridan. Not sure just how bad Barack Obama would be in the highest elected office in this country? Go to Steve Sailer's blog. Check out the posts he's done on Barack Obama. Learn! Then climb down off your high dudgeon and vote! Don't miss Patrick's political musings, either. Try this Obama post, why don'cha? Then read everything there.
Born Again RedneckI'm just sayin'.

The march of Dhimmitude continues to plague Europe. By now you all know the Archbishop of Canterbury has lost his stones completely and is now a full-fledged Frenchman. He's surrendered his flock to the Muslims without a tussle. Why the Queen of England hasn't tossed him out on his over-paid, surrender-monkey arse, I don't know. And much of Europe is already underneath the flood of Muslim invaders while their governments continue to bend over backward to not rile the poor Muslim dears. Some are starting to fight back, but not nearly enough. Europe may even be lost to the darkness of Islam even now. Time will tell.

Anti-Semitism is back in force and is now the favored hobby of Leftists around the world. Beatings and humiliation of Jews is no longer considered hate, but simply the free expression of poor, put-upon, misunderstood Muslims. The Conspiracy Theorists on the Left now have their most favored target once again. And the MSM could care less about it. Aren't they right on the ball?

Cold, huh?Global Warming is proven - over and over again! - to be a phantasm of the Left who wish to destroy Capitalism and particularly the United States. But still they persist in playing the feeble-minded against us all in the MSM and in politics. While this has proven to be one of the coldest Winters in memory, now that is supposedly evidence of Global Warming - ahem! - Global Climate Change! Stop CO2 emissions! It's warming us up! Wait! It's cooling us off! Poppycock!

Climate change is natural, has been happening since the Earth first had a climate, and will continue forever. Don't think so? You need to get a real education, Junior!

Truth-Pain has some mea-culpas regarding his prognostications. He may have been a tad off in some things, but he's still trying to see into the future. His blog gets updated about as often as the groundhog sees his own shadow - well, more often than that, really - as he hibernates and ruminates. Then he comes out swinging and makes for some excellent reading. Visit. You must!

Not been to see Gina Cobb yet? Or maybe you just forgot? Well now you have a reminder. And make sure you visit Bookworm at Bookworm Room. She's back from her Florida vacation, was ably substituted while she was away, and as always her blog is worth reading. So go read it and comment!

Hurricane from 'Key Largo' which ain't where I live.Now I've just finished two home-made egg/sausage/cheese burritos and a big pot of coffee. I'm feeling pretty good. Last night we had a Mother of a big storm here. Tornado watches were in effect all over this part of Florida's west coast. Lightning, thunder, driving rain, high winds lashed the area. I loved it! I only wish the rain had been blowing North/South so I could have gone out on my balcony and watched it in comfort. Right now the skies are overcast, the wind moving along at a brisk pace, and it's 50 degrees. Nice! Colder weather is heading down from the North. Yay!

Now, I'm going to post this and get back to surfing blogs and - I hope! - writing. And how have you all been?

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Presidents Day 2008: Honoring George Washington

As we celebrate this Presidents Day, which was originally begun to honor the nation's first President, George Washington, perhaps we need to remember who he was. He was not some dead white guy, as the MSM and the Leftists would see him reduced to. He was not a fiendish slave-holder, operating outside the borders of acceptable society. He was not a power-hungry militarist grasping for power over his fellow man.

George Washington was what one writer called "the Indispensable Man". He was the single individual who had the right amount of wisdom, ambition, experience, canniness to help a new nation come into existence in a time of Revolution, and having returned to his civilian life after that war was won, reluctantly accepted his election as the nation's first Constitutional President. Not as learned as John Adams, who was also a great man, nor as visionary as the philosopher/legislator Thomas Jefferson, who was also a great man, George Washington embodied so many attributes needed by the American Colonies at that time and place that no other man was qualified to step into his shoes. He was unique. He was the most important man of his time. And we honor him on this day.
George Roche, of the Society for the Advancement of Education, wrote an article entitled, "George Washington's Legacy - background and contributions of US first president". In it he wrote:
The War for Independence essentially was won in 1781 after Washington pulled off a stunning surprise attack at Yorktown, but his army couldn't be disbanded until a treaty was signed. His men were furious, since they couldn't return to plant crops and care for their families. Worse yet, most of them hadn't been paid for two years.

As late as March, 1783, they still were marooned in a dirty, crowded camp in Newburgh, N.Y. Congress continued to mm a deaf ear to Washington's pleas that the men be paid or discharged. It wasn't just the enlisted men who were grumbling about this shameful ill-treatment. Scores of officers were circulating anonymous pamphlets calling for mutiny. The rag-tag army had won the war, but now stood to lose the peace. There was a possibility that the American experiment would be over before it really had begun, and the nation would be plunged into bloody civil war.

Then, Washington performed one last desperate act. He showed up unexpectedly at a secret meeting that was designed to launch the mutiny. He asked if he could speak and reluctantly was given the floor. Washington called for his officers to be patient just a little while longer. He reminded them that the army could not be a law unto itself and pointed out that they had fought together to institute democracy, not a new kind of tyranny. He concluded by saying, "I have a letter here from a Congressman that will prove the good faith of our government." He drew the parchment from his pocket and unfolded it.

The light in the tavern was too dim for him to make out the words, though. With a trembling hand, Washington fumbled for his glasses, which he hated and never had worn in public before. In a deeply mortified tone, he apologized, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind in the service of my country." He started to read the letter, but his voice, as well as his composure, deserted him. He stalked out of the room without uttering another word.

The officers were all hardened soldiers who had witnessed terrible sights without flinching. Yet, seeing their beloved commander reduced to such a state, they began to weep openly. They immediately pledged to follow orders and quell all attempts at mutiny. Once again, Washington had saved the new nation from destruction.

As a young boy, trying to educate himself beyond the feeble schooling he had received, he read and memorized more than 100 rules of conduct devised by French Catholic monks, copying them down in his journal carefully. Among those rules of conduct were these:

"Speak not when you should hold your peace"
"Always submit your judgment to others with modesty"
"Be not hasty to believe flying reports to the disparagement of any"
"Let your conversation be without malice or envy"
"When you speak of God or His attributes, let it be seriously"
"Let your recreations be manful, not sinful"
"Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."

All of these, and many more that he copied and memorized, would do wonders for so many of our elected officials today, not to mention our politicians and the members of the American media. But they would scoff at such silliness even as they continue to degrade and denigrate the Father of our Country.

As noted above, George Washington stopped what could have been a bloody Mutiny by the Continental Army, preserving the theory of civilian control of the military, before we had truly become a nation. He had the power, and the popularity among his officers and men, to have taken control of the fledgling government and become America's King. But George Washington would have none of it. That was not why he had fought the British.

At war's end Washington rode to the Maryland State House, where Congress was sitting, and resigned his commission, offering his farewell address to the Congress.
I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my Official life, by commending the Interests of our dearest Country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping.

Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theatre of Action; and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.

Leaving the room he mounted his horse and rode all the way home to Mount Vernon to take up his civilian life. Unheard of. And yet it was fully in keeping with the character of George Washington.

Elected as the nation's first Constitutional President, George Washington reluctantly left his home and got to work establishing the office of the Presidency. He was uncomfortable in the post, believing that many others were far more capable than he - not to mention far more willing - and after his second term expired he turned over the reins of power to his elected successor and went home. Unheard of.

George Washington could have ascended the throne of the United States of America, becoming its first King, but never had the desire. He sought only the best for his fellow citizens, acted on their behalf, and in their best interests. And when he was finished with the task at hand, he went home. Every time.

Presidents Day 2008: let's honor the man who made this nation possible. Forget he sales and the nonsense, forget the disparaging comments from pointy-headed historians who know less than they think. Lets give a cheer for our nation's Father. George Washington.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

It's Valentine's Day! ooOOOOOoooh!

Die, Cupid, Die!It's Valentine's Day. Do you care? Did you buy something nice for your significant other? Perhaps some candy, or flowers? Maybe you bought a nice card or some expensive jewelry. Or perhaps you, like quite a few other folks, don't celebrate this "holiday" and find the whole thing just annoying as heck. Me, I don't really care.

M&Ms in Valnetine colorsI have no significant other and so have no need to celebrate the holiday at all. Working in a retail environment this holiday is simply another time of the year when odd things come into the store and fill the shelves. Cute plush animals, with red or pink fur, dancing, singing romantic frogs (I have no clue who would find those romantic), candies in colorful Valentine's Day wrappers, and of course my real candy favorite - M&Ms - in pinks, reds, and whites. The card aisle is filled with the cards in the same bilious colors, and don't get me started on the proliferation of new things for the kiddies.

When I was in school I remember the fun of cutting red construction paper into heart shapes, adding some paper lace, thinking up funny sayings (Glue on a peanut and write "I'm nuts about you!") for the cards you would hand out to your classmates. Now we have Sponge Bob stickers, Spiderman crap, and so on. Nothing fun for the kids. Not really. Just more crap they can whime to their clueless parents about.

But I don't hate Valentine's Day. Face it, the day is a reminder, if nothing else, that your love needs to be shown. Can't remember your Wedding Anniversary? You won't be allowed to forget Valentine's Day - unless you live in a cave with Osama - as the reminders are in every store across the fruited plain. Keep forgetting your Lady's - or Gent's - birthday? Valentine's Day comes with reminders each day. If you forget it you are truly devoid of simple intelligence. Or you have a drinking problem.

So it can be a bit too much, but Valentine's Day is actually harmless. Merely a reminder to love. Love is all you need. Love, love, love. Got it?

Now the Islamists hate Valentine's Day as they claim it promotes licentiousness. The Islamists are deathly afraid that someone somewhere may display affection. Can't have that! Islam is not about Love, but about Death, so in good old Islamist fashion the Kuwaitis are trying to ban it, and hope to suppress all displays of affection. Send them your love, Folks. Love those meanies. It drives them crazier.

Death of CupidFor those of you with a loathing of Valentine's Day I give you a partial list from "YesbutNobutYes" called 'Up yours, Cupid!' :
1. Its too commercial. The whole idea of the holiday is to make profits for florists, greeting-card companies, candymakers, jewelers, and restaurants. When the spontaneity is gone, so is the romance.

2. My girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse is too materialistic. That girl you've been dating for a few months expects an engagement ring on Valentine's Day. Your boyfriend thinks a card and a box of candy is going to buy him into your pants. Yes, its contrived, but greedy people are just as much to blame as the gift stores.

3. I give and give, and get nothing in return. For women, this often means you find the most personal, meaningful, and romantic gift possible. The kind of thing you'd like to receive. Except you don't, because he doesn't consider it as important as you do. For men, this means that her expectations are so high you'll never completely please her, no matter what you do.

4. Its too cutesy and sappy and feminine. Mostly guys say this, but they are right. Pink hearts belong in a schoolgirl's room. Valentines Day can send you into a diabetic shock.

Read the list, it's funny. And then remember to give your Sweetie something nice today. Show them that you do love them. And then resolve to show them every day. Why waste the love? It's actually unlimited so spend it!

Happy Valentine's Day!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For the Ladies we have this nice quiz: Valentine's Day: How Bad's It Gonna Be This Year?

For the Gents we have this quiz:
The Valentines Day Test

From John Hawkins, at Right Wing News, comes "Be My Political Valentine". Wait for the images to load!
Be My Political Valentine

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Mitt Hangs It Up

CNN has the news. Romney said,
"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This is not an easy decision. I hate to lose," the former Massachusetts governor said.

"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country."

So it's John McCain who will be the Republican nominee. Too bad, but he will get my vote. For someone who has been pushing for Fred Thompson since the early summer of 2007, this is not fun. I hope that McCain picks Fred as his running mate. That would be an excellent choice, and it would be one that will allay alot of the fears of us conservatives.

Scott Ott, at Scrappleface, has this to say, in part:
"Bring Fred Thompson on as vice president to serve as the Constitutional conscience of the administration -- an ideological gravitas behemoth -- who can do for President McCain what Dick Cheney has done for President Bush on foreign policy. Behind the scenes, Vice President Thompson offers President McCain private counsel, guided by our Founding Fathers, without drawing attention to himself. Mr. Thompson seems eminently qualified for such a role, eschewing publicity and advancing the cause which impelled him to mount his own White House bid."

I know a lot of you are thinking of sitting the 2008 elections out, angry with the McCain treatment of Republicans in general and conservatives in particular. Some pulled that nonsense in 2006. The American people got stuck with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. How'd that work out for us, eh?

Still unsure? Well click on this link and read. Then come tell me if you can vote for McCain with a little less trepidation.

It made me feel better!

Thanks for the run, Governor Romney! Good luck in the future!

How 'Bout Hillary? Change?

Candidate ClintonChange is the favored buzzword of the Democrat Party this year. Every Democrat candidate is calling for change, usually with a straight face, while they have advocated exactly the same old communal solutions for the problems of this country. Those solutions have been tried around the world and have failed miserably everywhere. But our never-say-die Leftist Democrats always believe that they can make it work this time. If we just give them enough money and enough time and enough authority and enough power, by golly, they'll get it right this time! Of course every solution they tout has the added price tag of greater governmental meddling, less freedom for American citizens, more confiscation of the very wealth that we, the people, create.

Change sounds nice, but so does "daisy" and "gum drop", and at least you know what you get if you get those. Likewise we should all know by now what we get if we vote for Hillary Clinton to become the next President. How do we know? Because she has maintained the same reckless disregard for the Law throughout her adult life, the same appalling disregard for truth and facts, the same appalling lack of regard for the rights of the individuals of this nation. Whatever furthers her goals of gaining power and authority will be used. Whatever - whomever - gets in her way will be destroyed. And we know this even though the Leftist Media has glossed over, hidden, and outright lied about the facts as regards Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hillary has not changed. Not one iota. Not in decades. I read a very interesting and eye-opening article about her escapades during the Nixon Impeachment period, on the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry Staff as a junior lawyer for the Democrats. As Lisa Schiffren describes it at The Corner, in "Vetting Hillary: a Crack in the Legend":
[...] the job that brought her to the attention of the political universe, to which she no longer refers, was serving as a junior staffer on the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry staff, in 1974, which Mr. Zeifman ran.

Mr. Zeifman writes:

'After President Nixon's resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.'

He goes on to explain that Hillary's efforts to deny Nixon "representation by counsel," a basic right in our system of law, had to do with her patron, Senator Kennedy. It was known that, as part of his defense Nixon would argue that his after the fact knowledge of the Watergate break-in paled in comparison to J.F.K.'s activities, including "using the Mafia to attempt to kill Castro, successfully assassinating both Patrice Lamumba of the Congo, and Diem of South Vietnam." Teddy did not want a sitting president to make that case.

Read the whole thing - it isn't long - then go to Mr. Zeifman's article here. Not only is it eye-opening, but it certainly is nostalgic. This is classic Hillary Clinton, right down to removing papers - from the public eye - and putting them where they wouldn't be found.

The First LadyThink she's changed? Hardly. She's a cold, calculating power-seeker. I merely have to remember the pain she put the employees of the White House Travel Office through when she decided she wanted her friends in, rather than these outsiders. Clinton had every right to simply dismiss these people. He needed to offer no explanation. It was his right. But rather than do that, and look mean-spirited and cold, Hillary sicced the FBI on them and put those people through hell. And cost the taxpayers quite a sum of money in the process. I think you remember her other little foibles.

Change? Not our Hillary. Not now; not then; not ever.

As a Wellesley LeftyFor information on Hillary's Socialist beliefs, go here. This is her life’s goal. See? No change!

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Obama Offers Change? Really?

Obama - the Empty SuitBarack Obama is running on the theme of “Change” and is fighting Hillary Clinton tooth-and-nail all the way. Those who hear him speak say he’s very good - at speaking. His speeches allow him to soar rhetorically while floating along on the clouds of inconsequential ideas. As some on the political Right have said, “He’s an empty suit.” So what’s the big deal here?

Is the fascination that he’s the first competitive black man to run for the US Presidency? Is it that he’s young - something the Democrats seem to cherish above all else - or that he can give a good speech? Certainly it isn’t that he’s a legislative powerhouse. As an Illinois Senator he did practically nothing while in office save cash his paychecks from the state and vote, “present”. As a US Senator he’s simply voted with the Democrats, often to their Left, while offering not one idea that is new, or important, or of any consequence to the American people.

So what is it about Barack Obama? What has the Democrats and the black celebrities all atwitter? What is it about him that makes Leftist media-types go gaga for him?

Well, for one thing he isn’t Hillary! He isn’t shrill and pedantic. He has a certain amount of charisma - an over-rated quality, to be sure - and has youth. He also does not have the immense baggage of Bill Clinton hanging around his neck. The women seem to think him handsome, and he does carry himself well in the public arena. Also, the MSM does not pay any heed to his lack of legislative prowess or record. In fact the MSM simply does not speak on the issue of Obama beyond the feel-good platitudes of his campaign speeches. He speaks also of “Unity”, which to him, and to most leading Democrats, means destroying the First Amendment. Unity of thought is what they seek and desire. Without unity we have a robust Republic, rather than a European-style moribund State. Unity to Obama, as well as his supporters, means you’re with me or against me. And that’s a change for this country, too, if he wins.

Obama and a moonbat supporter. Love the hair, don't you?Barack Obama is pretty much whatever his supporters want him to be. The few instances where he has taken any kind of stand have been right down the Democratic line. He spoke out against the Armenian Genocide by the Turks. A brave stance that only everybody not Turkish had already taken years before. And to support a Congressional action on it now, while the Turks were providing support in our fight against the Islamic Terror, was not well thought-out at all. But it went along with the Democrat leadership.

He bravely took a stand in favor of jacking up the pay of Teachers, while opposed to any sort of merit standards. Again, right down the line with the Democrat Party. He tells the public that he doesn’t agree with his own Pastor’s racist dogma, but not in such a way as to distance himself from that worthy Mentor. He continues to belong to a church that advocates Black Power, while assuring the American people that he is not a black radical. He tells us that he will sit down with the leaders of the Middle East to dialogue with them as a way to solve the age-old problems of violence there, while saying nothing about the root of the violence: Islamic hatred of Jews. He has yet to part with the growing anti-Semitism of the Democrat Party, and will probably castigate Israel as a purveyor of violence and oppression. Again, very much in keeping with the tenets of the modern Democrat Party.

Know him by his friendsBarack Obama parrots the Democrat Party line from start to finish. So, where’s the change? Where’s the National Renewal he and his supporters seem so eager to effect? Well, it’s nowhere. What Obama proposes is simply more Socialism, less freedom, more surrender to loud-mouthed grievance groups, less spine against criminals and murdering terrorists. In other words Barack Obama wants a Democrat Party Platform enacted despite its un-American aims and roots. His idea of change is to put another Leftists Democrat in the White House. His idea of change is to stifle the speech of those with whom he disagrees. His idea of change is ... more of the same Leftist pap that has become part-and-parcel of the Democrat Party since Jimmy Carter. And the only real change that he offers to the American voter is the color of his skin. He is half-Black and half-White. Of course he runs as a Black man, not as a White man. (Yes, I know that there are racist elements in this Society that would not consider him White, no matter how much White blood he had.)

Change? The Democrat Party offers only a change from the future to the past. They offer a change from Liberty and Freedom to the shackles of a Socialist State. Their idea of change is to destroy the Constitution and replace it with the mindless, empty-souled barrenness of Socialism - a system of government that has failed throughout history and destroyed countless lives over the past century.

Admiring Hillary? Riiiight!Should Barack Obama win the Democrat nomination for the Presidency they will simply be switching skin color in their efforts to steer this nation into the maw of the Socialist dictatorship. Not that Hillary Clinton is far away from that either. She isn’t. But she does seem to have some grounding in common-sense when it comes to the Islamic threat. But we’ll see, eh?

Change? Unity? Buzzwords for the Democrats and the MSM. Empty platitudes to those of us who can still think. Yes, Barack Obama can give one hell of a speech. But he isn’t saying a single, blessed thing. And I doubt he ever will.

Friday, February 01, 2008

Quo Vadis, Republicans?

The Republican Party used to be the home of Conservatism in America. It was not always a happy home for conservatives. Big Government Republicans ran the party for a long, long time, and now are back in charge. While the conservatives could rally enough support, finally, to put a Barry Goldwater into the Presidential Election of 1964 - and let's face it, most of the Party didn't have the guts to face LBJ in that election - it remained an anomaly. Until Ronald Reagan garnered enough support to make his successful run in 1980.

While conservative Republicans have hearkened back to the Reagan Revolution for inspiration they have forgotten most of what President Reagan did in his two terms, working as he did under a predominantly Leftist Congress for most of his administration. Reagan knew that you had to compromise if you were to get anything done. When he could, though, Reagan stuck to First Principles. And the Party prospered under his Presidency, and attracted voters from the disaffected of the Democrats and Independents. But Reagan was not dogmatic. He took what he could and compromised what he couldn't. And staunch conservatives were not happy.

Now conservatives are seeing the emptiness of the Republican Party once again. The Party has raised, not a conservative standard-bearer, but more Big Government Statists, Socialists, and Constitutional illiterates. The front-runner - and MSM-anointed Republican Nominee-to-be - Senator John McCain of Arizona, while strong for National Defense, sees no problem with curtailing the free speech of the average American. He seems oblivious to the implications of an open border, while advocating the Global War on Terror. McCain holds grudges - something that poisons the soul and minimizes a person - and at times is petty, arrogant, dismissive. He claims a belief in holding the line on spending but is seemingly buying into the incredibly expensive fantasy of Global Warming (Global Climate Change seems to be the 'In' phrase now that warming is being debunked all over the world.) He denounces successful businessmen, a foolish, Socialist notion, and touts his own Patriotic life-style. He insults or ignores Christian Republicans, as if they have no legitimate voice in the Party, and discounts the most Conservative members of the Party, the very ones who are depended upon to vote in great numbers. And if he pisses them off enough, who will he blame if they decide to sit out the General Election?

McCain is not my choice for the nominee. But he is ahead, and many seem to believe that he is the only one who can beat either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. That remains to be seen.

Mitt Romney is a business whiz. He's proven time and time again that he can make a success of a failing company, redirect a company in trouble, and has made a lot of money not only for himself, but for those who invest their money in the companies he oversees. He's gentlemanly in a process that seems to demand ruthlessness and deceit. While he supports the Global War on Terror, he seems to think his lack of Foreign Affairs experience can be overcome by relying on the US State Department - an agency that has worked against US interests for decades and actively attempts to ruin the President's Foreign Policy moves. His tenure as Governor of Massachusetts was a success, by all accounts. Yet this 'Conservative' Republican ordered the kind of Leftist actions that any Conservative loathes, such as Gay Marriages, rather than fight them and take on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. His flip-flops are famous now, resulting, for instance, in a hard-line stance on Illegal Aliens that he didn't call for earlier, said everyone should be allowed to join the Boy Scouts and later retracted that idea, he supported Embryonic Stem Cell research then decided it was wrong, he supported Abortion Rights then thought better of the idea once he decided to run for President, he ... Well, you get the idea. What does Mitt Romney support? We can't really say, can we?

Yet, of the two Republicans with a chance at the nomination he's the one I reluctantly support.

Ron Paul has some solid ideas, based on the US Constitution, yet he also seems oblivious to the realities of Islamic Terrorism and a Global Economy. He seems to draw the fringe elements from anti-semites and isolationists, and has, in the past, advocated some fairly racist ideas. He has no chance for the nomination.

Mike Huckabee is a Nanny-State Republican, an Evangelical who wants the Federal Government to tell people how they can live their lives (Socialism, in a word), and expects to guide the American People to the Lord through Government planning rather than the Scriptures. He would be a disaster in the mold of Jimmy Carter. He has no chance at the nomination.

The only candidate who upheld so-called First Principles as far as the US Constitution, and seemed to understand what the job of President actually entailed - rather than what it has become - was Fred Thompson. He was the only candidate whose positions have not changed over time to fall in line with present fads. He understood what the Constitution says, and would have upheld it while the weak-minded, and spineless whined and howled around his ankles. But Fred entered the race very late in the day, stumbled at the start - which lost a lot of his early support - and never campaigned as if he really wanted the job. Now that may be desirable in a candidate - do we really want a President who wants the job that badly? - but it doesn't make for an exciting or inspiring campaign. And the press simply ignored him for most of his candidacy. His numbers never rose high enough to make him a serious candidate despite the deep feelings his supporters held for him and his ideas. So he quit the race before Super Tuesday, something I think was a huge mistake. But maybe he was positioning himself for a Vice Presidential invite by the eventual nominee. I would think that a fine choice by the nominee. Probably the best choice possible. We'll see.

Win or lose, in the 2008 General Election, the Republican Party has some thinking to do. It has drifted far from its foundations and become a sort of Socialist Light. Th conservative base of the Party is once again marginalized by those who seek the power of elective office, but fear the wrath of the media. As we saw when the Republicans actually held majorities in the House and the Senate, they were reluctant to act without the support of the Democrats. That is something the Democrats never did while they held solid power for nearly 50 years. As the Majority Party, Democrats never bothered to consult with the Republicans unless their votes were needed. Otherwise they were treated as a perpetual fringe party, incapable of rising to power and unimportant. Once they gained that elusive governing power the Republicans led as if they were still in the minority. And they failed.

Now the Democrats hold the majority power once again, and treat the Republicans as if they will never matter again. So what should Republicans do? Keep playing along and hope for a few crumbs from the Democrat's plate? Keep trying to get the MSM to love us? No. Enough of all that idiocy. No matter what happens in the General Election - and I will vote for the Republican against the Democrat - it's time to change the Republican Party.

Start rebuilding the Party. From the ground up. Define the principles that make us Republicans rather than Democrats and push for candidates who act like Republicans. The National Party needs to stop playing as if Rockefeller was still a faction. Republicans in office who play fast and loose with the principles should be voted out of office and replaced with solid Republicans. And the National Party should be starved of funding if the they continue to support Leftist Republicans over solid First Principle Republicans. No more Arlen Specters, no more Bob Packwoods, no more Bill Frists, no more surrendering the principles of the Party for the expedience of winning a few votes. The Party has to see the reality that the People will vote for a true Conservative if given the choice. Otherwise they will vote against the Republican.

So let's offer the voters real Republicans. But we have to start at the beginning. First Principles. The US Constitution. The law rather than feelings or fads. Back to the beginning. We the People!

Sister Toldjah has some thoughts on the "State of the Conservative Union" - go check it out! Also the Anchoress urges a bit of calm. Read them both!