We're Dealing With a Lot of Sh*t

CLASSIC SCENE FROM BULL DURHAM.   

(just the cover I need to pontificate about politics)

[Larry jogs out to the mound to break up a players' conference]  Larry: Excuse me, but what the hell's going on out here?  Crash Davis: Well, Nuke's scared because his eyelids are jammed and his old man's here. We need a live... is it a live rooster?  [Jose nods]  Crash Davis: . We need a live rooster to take the curse off Jose's glove and nobody seems to know what to get Millie or Jimmy for their wedding present.  [to the players]  Crash Davis: Is that about right?  [the players nod]  Crash Davis: We're dealing with a lot of s--t.  Larry: Okay, well, uh... candlesticks always make a nice gift, and uh, maybe you could find out where she's registered and maybe a place-setting or maybe a silverware pattern. Okay, let's get two! Go get 'em. 

This about sums up my take on the Presidential election pre-convention. Americans are dealing with a  lot of sh*t. On the R- side, folks are looking for reasons to wrap their arms or their minds around the idea of Mitt Romney being their future President, like a reluctant lover reticent to commit to marriage for fear that their future Mr. / Mrs. Wright or Mr. / Mrs. Soul-mate will waltz through the door the moment AFTER they commit. Ain't life just like that?    On the D- side, we have a lot of folks heavily invested emotionally in President Obama. Hanging on like an abused spouse (see Juan Williams below).

Reluctant to leave, even though they feel like -- deep down inside -- it's the right thing to do. He's not good for them, but yet they blame themselves for the abuse. Not the abuser. A little dash of Stockholm Syndrome thrown in  for good measure.  And it's really hard to make a rational decision when you're dealing with emotional issues, right?  So, here we are. Welcome to Sh*t-ville.       -----   Disgusting pig Juan Williams – Ann Romney looked like a ‘corporate wife’ – she’s rich and her husband takes care of her     http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/08/28/disgusting-pig-juan-williams-ann-romney-looked-like-a-corporate-wife-shes-rich-and-her-husband-takes-care-of-her-video/ ---- ---- Juan Williams comes off as nothing but a little p*nk-a$$ b*tch, who is going to be crying for the second election in a row, this time for a different reason. Last time, it was because Mr. Hope and Change was elected. This time it will be because he will be given the home game mainly for delivering more despair than hope and plenty of change, just too much change for the worse in the minds of most R-s, I-s and whites who voted him in the first time. ---

---- This Ann Romney speech encapsulates the so-called "War on Women" in a nutshell. It's not men vs. women. If that's the case, and men are prosecuting this so-called war, you can call it off right now. We lost. It's not even R- men vs. women. They couldn't win a war vs. an ant farm with a case of Raid. It's liberal feminist women vs. traditional wives who are balancing career and motherhood. To some, they are a threat. It is what Sarah Palin represented and that's what an Ann Romney represents, among other things. And it's why they are attacked and feared.     ---   from Wikipedia:

In April 2012, Ann Romney was spotlighted when Democratic commentator  Hilary Rosen declared Romney to be unfit to address women's economic issues because as a stay-at-home mother, she had "never worked a day in her life".^[78] In response, Ann Romney issued her first tweet, saying "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work."^[79] The following day Rosen said, "I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended."^[78]

Don't kid yourself for one moment, not ONE!! This is the kind of woman the Ann Romney and Sarah Palin represent. -----

---- And a War on Women -- if their is one to speak of -- has been declared ON these women by the types of radical feminists you will see in full-throated display in Charlotte shortly.  Good Luck Losers. I know who I'm rooting for.  So, we're still dealing with a lot of sh*t. Women engaged in a Civil War. And an electorate that needs a major dose of Dr. Phil to make what may go down as the most important electoral decision in American history. ----

We are so screwed!!! 

My prediction:

---- Way to go Ann!! The most CLUTCH political speech in history. The balance of the election was tipped last night, IMO. She will have more of an effect on the eventual outcome than VP selection Paul Ryan. The pundits set the bar exceedingly high for her -- mainly so she couldn't possibly clear it -- taking the Romney - Ryan chances down with her.  And yet, she delivers the most classy, dignified and inspiring defense of a candidate I've ever heard. And she left a lot on the table. More impressive to me is what she didn't say. She didn't mention one word about Romney giving away his father's inheritance. She did indirectly when she said Mitt is reluctant to pat himself on the back for his charity. The hyper-partisan web site Politifact (a more apt name would be Politi-hacks). You can read their "opinion" as to why the claim is "half-true". I would say after reading, you would be more likely to rate this site "half-assed" and "Pants on Fire" partisan.   ---     from Politi-hack:   http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/

Our ruling

Mitt Romney, making the case that he made his own wealth, said, "I didn't inherit money from my parents."

Indeed, he was already a wealthy man by the time his father, George, died in 1995. He did receive an inheritance but says he gave it away. We don't have independent confirmation of that. But a family-funded endowment at BYU started in 1998 to support the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management, bolstering Romney's claim.

Did Romney's career benefit from having well-to-do parents? It certainly eased his way, with their financial help allowing him to focus on his studies. But there's good evidence he also worked hard to make his own success, graduating with honors at BYU and Harvard, and building a reputation at Boston Consulting Group and Bain that ultimately catapulted him to wealth.

Romney wasn't entirely clear about the inheritance he gave away when he said he "didn't inherit money" from his parents. But he's right that such a gift wasn't key to his success. We rate his claim Half True.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this item gave the wrong decade for George Romney's presidential run. He ran in 1968.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/27/reince-priebus/republican-national-committee-chair-reince-priebus/

Our ruling

Reince Priebus says that Romney "gave away his father's inheritance."

Romney has repeatedly said so himself and that's backed up by the simple fact that Brigham Young University has an institute named for his father launched just a few years after his death. And there’s no reason to think Romney would have needed the money a decade after his lucrative move to Bain Capital.

We find the evidence supports the claim and we see nothing to contradict it. If any evidence emerges, we'll review it. But in the meantime, we rate Priebus’ claim True. Half-true in January and True August 26th. What changed? These folks are ridiculous. --- Ann also did not do what many of the political pundits said she should do to capitalize on the fact that Mitt stayed with her like the dutiful husband through her struggles with MS and breast cancer. She could have played the victim card and she didn't, she mentioned it once, and moved on. Very dignified and graceful. Very rare in modern politics as well. I expect that these two are sufficiently well-grounded emotionally and spiritually that they would never have even considered capitalizing on that aspect of their story.   from Wikipedia:

Regarding the couple's wealth, she alluded to her health problems and said, "Look, I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing, it can be here today and gone tomorrow. And how I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones that I have and the people that I care about in my life."

---- It was a very illuminating insight into how out of touch these folks who wade in the dirty waters of partisan politics are. And how well-grounded the Romney's as a married couple are. We may not know until 4-8 years from now how great a MAN Mitt Romney actually is, judging him by the measuring stick he now wants the American public to use to judge him by. Leader of the nation during a very challenging time.  But if the old adage "Behind (or beside) every great man is a great woman" can still be true in this culture we live in today, perhaps Ann Romney just demonstrated that Mitt HAS exactly what it takes to be great. And she just delivered, in the clutch, the best political speech I've heard in a long time. ---- If she didn't move the dial in closing the so-called gender gap between Romney and Obama, I would be very surprised.  If she didn't move the dial in increasing the enthusiasm gap R-s had in wrapping their arms fully around Mitt as a candidate, I would be very surprised.  If she didn't move the dial among evangelicals, I would be very surprised. -----   WAY TO GO,  ANN ROMNEY!!

Harper blasts HR and reporter in the same night - AWESOME!!

Bryce Harper "Clown Question Bro"


This will be the phrase that pays for the next few days or so.

What do you suppose is the over / under on the President using it in his next press conference?

My guess is he uses it before the weekend is out.

WH Reporter: Mr. President. Iran is taking provocative actions in the Middle East, threatening the world oil supply, to say nothing about the existential threat they pose to our good friend and staunch ally, the state of Israel. The American people want to know what are your plans for dealing with this threat?

President Obama: That's a clown question, bro.

Can you imagine if Sarah Palin had Bryce as her advisor before she met with Katie Couric?

Couric: Governor Palin. In order to prove to the American people that you ARE indeed the doorknob I believe you to be, could you tell us what newspapers or comic books you read?

Palin: That's a clown question, bro.

She would be hiding McCain's nitro-glycerin tablets if she had that kind of snappy retort.

Lost in all the hoopla was a pretty useful explanation for younger power hitters to emulate.
Once in a while, go up there with the idea that -- first pitch -- your going to just lay into it something fierce.

The kid doesn't get cheated when he turns it loose. He seems pretty media savvy as well.




from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/nationals-vs-blue-jays-bryce-harper-homer-punctuates-washingtons-fifth-straight-win/2012/06/12/gJQACh2kYV_story.html

Harper has reached base in eight of his last 10 plate appearances, the possible start to one of the monster hot streaks he has compiled each season since junior college. None of those at-bats resonated like his second Tuesday night, with nobody on base in the third inning.

In his first at-bat, Harper had rifled a ground ball through the right side for a single. He dug in now against starter Henderson Alvarez with the game still scoreless. He had been selective all series. Now, just because, he wanted to hack.

“I was going up there swinging out of my shoes, first pitch,” Harper said. “I made up my mind in the on-deck circle. It could have been a curveball, 54 feet. I was swinging.”

Alvarez threw him a first-pitch change-up, an off-speed offering to get over for strike one. Harper destroyed it.

“I don’t know why the outfielder went back,” Manager Davey Johnson said.

The ball came off his bat like a cannon blast, soaring to right-center field. It never stopped gathering speed until, suddenly, it thudded off the portion of Windows restaurant covered by a BlackBerry billboard. The place may have been 450 feet from the plate. The collision sounded like a manhole cover dropped from a skyscraper.

The media accidentally finds Sarah Palin to be smarter than Obama

from the Washington Times: The Robbins Report:
Sarah the Smarty
June 17, 2011

Sarah Palin's critics routinely mock her intellect, so when the state of Alaska released 24,000 emails she wrote while serving as governor, "AOL Weird News," an offbeat component of AOL.com, had a representative sample analyzed to see how well she wrote. They expected the results to confirm their anti-Palin bias, but they were in for a surprise.

Far from being an illiterate bumpkin, the standard Flesch-Kincaid readability test showed that Ms. Palin's emails were written at an 8.5 grade level. This was "an excellent score for a chief executive," AOLWN reported. To put some perspective on this number, Martin Luther King's August 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech -- much more heavily edited than Ms. Palin's emails -- ranked at 8.8 on the same scale, while Lincoln's Gettysburg Address came in at 9.1.

A study by Smart Politics on the readability ratings of recent State of the Union addresses also showed Ms. Palin in good company. President George H.W. Bush's average SOTU score was 8.6. Bill Clinton came in at 9.5. Ronald Reagan, who like Ms. Palin was heavily criticized by liberals and regarded as a doddering old fool, logged an impressive 10.3 rating. And George W. Bush, who earned even more left-wing contempt than Mr. Reagan, if that's possible, edged the Great Communicator with a10.4 ranking.

Then there is President Obama, heralded as the smartest president and the most gifted orator in living memory, but whose 2008 "Yes we can!" victory speech came in at a comparatively anemic Flesch-Kincaid rating of 7.4. Some numbers just speak for themselves.

Let's start listening to the 'kooks' more...the 'geniuses' got us in to this mess

The current Federal Reserve moguls returned to the scene of the crime this weekend -- Jekkyl Island, GA -- where plans for the Federal Reserve system were hatched one hundred years ago. In that time the value of the currency, which they are mandated to protect, has decreased nearly one hundred percent. As I have mentioned before, they are on pace to totally destroy the dollar -- to have it go from being worth less (two words) to worthless (one word) -- in another two or three years.

The only politician who seems to have a good grasp on what this means and what to do about it, Ron Paul.

RON PAUL CNBC INTERVIEW:

"I think the Fed will self-destruct. People will desert the dollar. I think the Chinese are hinting that already. They are not wanting our dollars as much as raw materials. This is a deeply flawed monetary system. Here we have a small group of people who can create $600 billion with the stroke of a pen... I don't know where people are coming from to think that this can work. What really astounds me me is how tolerant the people are, the people in Congress and the financial market, where did this authority come from? Now somebody outside of the government can spend trillions of dollars and not think anything about it. It doesn't work, it's a failure. And next year it will be more. Bernanke is very clear on what he is going to do - he is going to create money until he gets economic growth and there is no evidence to show that just creating money causes economic growth."

But he's the one who is branded by the major media outlets (on both sides) as a kook.

And he's the one who was branded by his fellow Republican's as a kook during the 2008 primaries.

They apparently should have been listening more closely to Mr. Paul than they did. Perhaps next time (2012), they will.

Perhaps more of the electorate will help them with their hearing and comprehension problems.

BTW, I know how he feels. I continue to burst out singing "Silver and Gold, silver and gold...." at random times throughout the day a lot more nowadays than I used to.

SILVER AND GOLD - AREN'T THEY JUST THE CUTEST THINGS??

I wonder why? Maybe because Gold crossed $1,400 today and Silver seems to be accelerating towards $30 an ounce.

It's funny that these two metals are also referred to as "honest money" but the signals that they are sending are somewhat "confusing" to the current Federal Reserve chairman.

I believe he knows exactly what kind of signal these two "honest money" markers are saying as he embarks on his quest to devalue the "dishonest money" - the dollar - that is under his stewardship. So liar, incompetent - you take your pick there Benny-boy. But history is going to put one of those labels on you, if not both, and they will stick.

Gold and Silver seem to be appreciating at a much more rapid rate than the assets (stocks, homes, commodities) that "Bubbles" Ben Bernanke seems to be trying so desperately to inflate.

I wonder why that is?

Hmmm......given the choice between "honest" and "dishonest" it confuses our intellectual genius of a Fed Chairman that people would choose honest over dishonest? WOW!!! That tells me something -- in rather unambiguous terms, no less -- about both Ben Bernanke and the monetary system that he currently oversees. Might be time for some SERIOUS reform in that area.

I suggest that the American people through their elected representatives -- help Benny with his listening and comprehension problem.

While we're at it, look at this:

Even our own Sarah Palin understands what is going on here. You go girl.

From the National Review:

Palin to Bernanke: ‘Cease and Desist’

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252715/palin-bernanke-cease-and-desist-robert-costa

Here are snippets from Palin’s prepared remarks obtained by National Review Online:

I’m deeply concerned about the Federal Reserve’s plans to buy up anywhere from $600 billion to as much as $1 trillion of government securities. The technical term for it is “quantitative easing.” It means our government is pumping money into the banking system by buying up treasury bonds. And where, you may ask, are we getting the money to pay for all this? We’re printing it out of thin air.

The Fed hopes doing this may buy us a little temporary economic growth by supplying banks with extra cash which they could then lend out to businesses. But it’s far from certain this will even work. After all, the problem isn’t that banks don’t have enough cash on hand – it’s that they don’t want to lend it out, because they don’t trust the current economic climate.

And if it doesn’t work, what do we do then? Print even more money? What’s the end game here? Where will all this money printing on an unprecedented scale take us? Do we have any guarantees that QE2 won’t be followed by QE3, 4, and 5, until eventually – inevitably – no one will want to buy our debt anymore? What happens if the Fed becomes not just the buyer of last resort, but the buyer of only resort?

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings. And the worst part of it: because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.

We shouldn’t be playing around with inflation. It’s not for nothing Reagan called it “as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hit man.” The Fed’s pump priming addiction has got our small businesses running scared, and our allies worried. The German finance minister called the Fed’s proposals “clueless.” When Germany, a country that knows a thing or two about the dangers of inflation, warns us to think again, maybe it’s time for Chairman Bernanke to cease and desist. We don’t want temporary, artificial economic growth bought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings. We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It’s the only way we can get our economy back on the right track.

Another kook according to the media.

Why does it seem to me -- and a growing number of people recently -- that a lot of the people that the media from both sides of the aisle seems to delight in portraying as 'out of the mainstream kooks' who have nothing to offer, are making the most sense?

VOTE THEM ALL OUT - THAT'S JUST GOOD ADVICE FOR THESE TRYING TIMES

If that doesn't work, Rinse, Lather, Repeat. Until we find some public servants who understand the meaning of the word "servant". I guess most of them understand the meaning of the word public, but I wouldn't mind them having to take a test to prove it. Maybe throw a question or two about the Constitution just to make them really squirm.

If that wasn't enough reason to like Ms. Palin here's 10 more from Doug Giles:

Why Palin Petrifies Progressives

Doug Giles

Here’s why I believe the dour democratic dames particularly dislike Palin. Check it out:

1. Palin’s hot and can rock a pair of heels, hunting boots, or any garment she dons. And you can tell she knows it and likes it. Most of the ladies on the Left, however, cannot—and we all know how jealous and petty some chicks can be when they’re aesthetically upstaged (cat fight).

2. They hate Sarah because she’s supposedly anti-intellectual. However, I’d love to see Tina Fey, Katie Couric or Joy Behag go mano a mano with her on any given topic and see who comes off looking like Snooki.

3. The feministas don’t dig SP because she’s had five kids (one of whom has Down’s Syndrome) and has never considered offing any of them in her womb.

4. She believes in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and they hate Christians.

5. She’s a conservative, and they hate conservatives.

6. She’s insanely successful, and she did it without curtsying to their wacked weltanschauung.

7. Her husband’s not some prissy, manicured metrosexual man-child but an ass kicking Alaskan.

8. She hunts and fishes. Her motto: Shoot it. Stuff it. Hang it on a wall, baby.

9. She’s unapologetic to all of the above.

10. And finally, they know that if she ever makes it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that she’s going to hand the Dems their shriveled BB-sized cojones on a free market platter while the majority of the USA gives her a standing ovation.

And that, my children, is why Palin petrifies the paranormal progressives.

KEEP ON HATING, BITCHES!!!

I agree with the sentiments portrayed by this political cartoon. This woman virtually single-handedly raised the Republican Party from the grave, And we shall see how they repay her. My guess would be a knife in the back or a stick in the eye or some other such nonsense. Once they begin to believe that the people turned to them because of their own virtues.

That's why I would not mind seeing a Paul - Palin option out there in 2012. And if that means the Repubs don't win, or it siphons off votes, too bad. Maybe these kind of independent thinkers are what we need.

And if the Dems need to rehab some moderates like Evan Bayh, or one of my personal favorites from the past, Bill Bradley, then I think we would be making some real, positive change in our government.

How did guys like that get chased off the scene so rapidly? Hmmm......I wonder?

As I have said before, we are probably overdue for a Revolution in this country. Hopefully, this can be a peaceful one. Next election, let's put the 'kooks' in charge -- we can't do much worse.

OBAMA WINS - NOW WHAT??

MCCAIN CONCEDES:



Very graceful and dignified exit. McCain and his staff ran one of the worst Presidential campaigns in history. Weak message early, disjointed response to the financial crisis. He should have stood alongside the Repubs who opposed the measure. The market was at 11,750 when they voted, it's been down 20% since then. The campaigns misuse of the Palin bounce was the baseball equivalent of pinch-hitting for your cleanup hitter in the third inning. They certainly didn't deserve to win.

AND OBAMA ACCEPTS VICTORY:






--------------
On a historic night for Obama, I can't say much in the way of negatives. However, it is difficult to believe that Dems expect Repubs to hold hands with them and sing Koom by Yah after eight years of foot-dragging against a Republican administration. For two terms, they've acted the part of petulant, sore losers and now they want the other side to behave like adults. Fortunately, they probably will.

I still don't get the dichotomy in his message. We're not red-states or blue-states, we're the United States on one hand. But Wall Street bad, Main Street good on the other hand. I guess the class warfare struggle continues.

Who is John Galt, where is John Galt indeed.

This may be the second time in my lifetime we elected a President more for what or who he was not. Obama is clearly not George W. Bush as we were repeatedly told. If the transformative figure argument were the overriding theme, he would have beaten Hillary Clinton by more than he did in the primaries.

The last time we did this was Jimmy Carter, who was all that Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford were not. He was not stained by Watergate, not a Washington insider. However, Carter ended up being clearly in over his head in the job. And he had a world of intelligence, great moral character and executive experience as well.

My hope is that Obama ends up governing more like Bill Clinton than Carter for obvious reasons, the stakes are too high at this point.

My fear is that along with Reid and Pelosi and with a perceived mandate, that for at least the first two years, they govern like a bunch of drunken students at a frat party. We seem to have a plethora of constituents that are lining up to get paid back for services rendered during the campaign and who feel they have been under served under previous administrations.

Clinton did not move to the center until the mid term elections of his first term when the Gingrich bunch came in and provided a counterweight of ideas.

Some post-mortem comments from the Cato Institute that are important to note.
--------------------------------------------
http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=ncomments&id=162

Cato Scholar Comments on Election Landslide

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Michael D. Tanner, senior fellow:

Yesterday's massive Democratic landslide cannot be seen as anything but a repudiation of George Bush and the current Republican congressional leadership. But to suggest that in electing Barack Obama and a Democratic congressional majority, voters were choosing big-government over small-government would imply that either the Bush administration, the current Republican congressional leadership, or, for that matter, John McCain actually supported smaller government. In reality, by almost every measure, government grew bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive under President Bush and the Republican Congress.

Exit polls show that Republican losses were heaviest among upscale suburban voters who tend to be economically conservative but socially moderate. These formally reliable Republican voters did not suddenly decide that they wanted a bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive government. But, faced with the big-government status quo or big-government "change," they opted for change.

Republicans now have two more years in the wilderness to decide whether or not they actually stand for limited government and individual liberty. One wonders, whether they will hear the message.
-------------------------------


Not Just the First African-American President

For two years now, everyone has talked about Barack Obama becoming the first black president, barely 40 years after the civil rights revolution. Obama himself has often said, “I don’t look like I came out of central casting when it comes to presidential candidates.”

But his achievement is even more striking than “first African-American president.” There are tens of millions of white Americans who are part of ethnic groups that have never produced a president. The fact is, all 42 of our presidents have been of British, Irish, or Germanic descent. We’ve never had a president of southern or eastern European ancestry. Despite the millions of Americans who came to the New World from France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Scandinavia, Russia, and other parts of Europe–not to mention Asia and the Arab world and Latin America–we’ve never had a president who traced his ancestry to those parts of the world. Indeed, it’s often been said that “we’ve never had a president whose name ended in a vowel” (except for a silent ”e” such as Coolidge, and with the exception of Kennedy), which is another way of saying “not of southern or eastern European heritage”).

As Philip Q. Yang put it in his book Ethnic Studies: Issues and Approaches, “There have been no presidents of southern and eastern European descent; and none of Jewish, African, Latino, Asian, or Indian descent.” We’ve had 37 presidents of British (English, Scottish, or Welsh) or Irish descent; three of Dutch descent (Van Buren and the two Roosevelts); and two of Swiss/German descent (Hoover and Eisenhower). Of course, these categories usually refer to the president’s paternal line; Reagan, for instance, was Irish on his father’s side but not on his mother’s. But that doesn’t change the overall picture.

In this light, Obama’s achievement is even more remarkable. He has achieved something that no American politician even of southern or eastern European heritage has managed. But I think we can assume that from now on there won’t be any perceived disadvantage to candidates of Italian, French, Asian, or other previous genealogies not previously seen in the White House. For that, congratulations to Barack Obama.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson's wisdom seems to transcend the ages. And if it was bad then, what must it look like now, and how is it going to look in the future? YIKES!!!!

Here is a sample of some of the stuff that was used to paint Arnold Schwarzenegger as some sort of right-wing wack-job. Judging by some of his policies, you might be able to make the opposite case.

http://www.maniacworld.com/arnold_schwarzenegger.htm

Why, on the one hand is it perfectly acceptable to use "guilt by association" tactics when they benefit your agenda, but on the other hand complain that they are unfair, smear tactics with possible racial undertones when the tables are turned. And this type of dichotomy is supposed to bring people together?

Good Luck with that one.

Plus, all this comes from a campaign that has profited the most from being able to link McCain to Bush. Why is that not considered "guilt by association" as well. Common street logic indicates that if you can dish it out, you ought to be able to take it. Or, as momma used to say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

I guess if you're keeping score, the people in Sen. Obama's neighborhood include:
Reverend Wright
William Ayers
Tony Rezko
and now the piece de resistance Rashid Khalidi

The reason I think Khalidi is the piece de resistance is because now you have agents in the media (Los Angeles Times) acting openly in a role as campaign manager/cheerleader would to promote/protect an individual candidate rather than as a conduit of information to the people. This is the role the media is supposed to play. Edward R. Morrow must be spinning in his grave.

An editorial endorsement is one thing, but to extend that out to biased coverage is another, and then to further the bastardization of the role of the media in America to suppressing relevant information is pretty much beyond the pale.

I'm not sure who it is they feel they are protecting (actually I do). If the source of the tape was anonymous, then the only one left to protect is the candidate. You can't protect ANONYMOUS. There's too many people who go by that name. They post opinions on message boards and comment sections everyday.

If the tape contains nothing that would embarrass the "chosen" candidate at this point, then to release the tape would embarrass his opponent greatly. Great motivation to release the tape.....IF it doesn't contain anything embarrassing.

If the tape doesn't contain anything embarrassing, then McCain will be TOAST on Election Day. That's if he isn't already.
SO WHAT'S THE HARM IN RELEASING THE TAPE?

For these media whores to get up on their high horses now and say their motivation is some lofty, idealistic motivation would be laughable, if the consequences were not that serious.

Sorry media whores, you have long ago lost the ability to claim any moral high ground. It sounds as long ago and far way as Madonna crooning "Like a Virgin".

Momma always told me you are judged by the company you keep. I still consider those wise words. To the extent that it goes to determining the levels of a person's trustworthiness and character, I think most people understand that these are time-tested litmus tests.

I remember when similar "scurrilous" charges were levelled against one Sen. Clinton from Arkansas character regarding the number of "bimbo eruptions" there were in his past. They were casually dismissed by most in the media and were not given the same digging that has gone into say "Joe the Plumber" or Sarah Palin's background. The problem is next thing you know the President is keeping world leaders waiting in the Rose Garden while he's getting "it" from an intern in the Oval Office.

LET'S NOT HAVE HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF!!! RELEASE THE TAPE!!!!

Another quote I use as a guide to try and sort through all the nonsense comes from the philosopher/football coach/GM Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are."

And I wonder most about what this means when I hear/see that leaders from around the world including, but not limited to:

The Castros
Hugo Chavez
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Kim Jong-Il

are simply salivating at the prospects of an Obama administration. The reason seems to be because he speaks the language--the lexicon--of his new-found BFF's. To my knowledge, he has never visited the countries of those leaders. None of those leaders, to my knowledge has ever lived in Obama's neighborhood. But they speak a common language of socialism. People in certain fields or walks of life, recognize other kindred spirits--without ever having met them before--by certain key phrases and word choices.

This is why Joe the Plumber recognized or was suspicious of the Obama tax plan. These other world leaders have access to the Internet, they know where both candidates have been and more importantly, where they are likely to go in the future. The fact that these nut-jobs openly endorse one candidate over the other is a clear sign.

It's a shame that Obama wouldn't require restrictions before a sit-down with Ahmadinejad, but the Iranian leader has pre-conditions before HE is willing to sit-down with an American leader:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/11/content_10180898.htm
------------
TEHRAN, Oct. 11 (Xinhua) -- Iran's president media consultant Mehdi Kalhor said here Saturday that Iran has two conditions for talks with the United States, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"If the United States does not move out of the middle east and the U.S. government does not give up its support for the Zionist regime, we do not think the talks between Iran and the United States would be advisable," Kalhor said.

"Today, it is the United States that needs to have relations with Iran," Kalhor told IRNA, adding that "We believe that our religion accepts repentance."
---------------
What's wrong with this picture? If it were me, I would have only one pre-condition for meeting with Ahmadinejad--positive confirmation of his death.

A pre-condition that may be closer to reality than the Iranian leader is willing to let on:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/28/neil-hrab-ahmadinejad-wears-himself-out.aspx
------------
Rattling sabres, constantly irritating Washington, speculating darkly on Israel's future -- the life of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, is a busy one. You think it's easy being the highest-profile member of the Axis of Evil? Think again. There are reports that Ahmadinejad is burning himself out through over-work and has been admitted to hospital.

The National, a daily newspaper published in Abu Dhabi, reported that Ahmadinejad hadn't been seen in public in days and needs regular hospitalization for low blood pressure.

-------------
See, there is good news in the papers these days. Maybe he will take Kim Jong-Il with him. Then perhaps the North Koreans will be able to figure out how to feed the 2/3 of their population they are neglecting to care for today. But they sure can test fire missiles and build nuclear reactors, huh. Great country--we should look for their approval, right?

APPEASEMENT OF ENEMIES OF FREEDOM DIDN'T WORK AGAINST THE NAZI'S - IT DIDN'T WORK AGAINST THE RUSSIANS - IT DIDN'T WORK FOR JIMMY CARTER - IT PROBABLY WILL NOT WORK TODAY.
---------------------------
WORDS OF WISDOM FROM EDWARD R. MURROW:

Quotes

"This instrument [television] can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."

"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices."

"We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are: The defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."

"To be persuasive, we must be believable; to be believable, we must be credible; to be credible, we must be truthful."

JUST ANOTHER CASE OF HISTORY REPEATING

STOCK MARKET CRASH OF 1929


STOCK MARKET CRASH OF 1987

I'm getting the same feeling about this stock market situation as I did when 9/11 occurred. At the time I felt like, "Wow, this must be what it felt like when Pearl Harbor was attacked". You knew that you were experiencing an event that would be in the history books of the future.

The same type of event continues in the stock market today. We experienced this as a nation in 1929 and 1987. The 1929 event was cataclysmic and changed this nation forever with the subsequent Depression and the ushering in of the New deal policies of FDR.

We will apparently go through similar changes today, which will cause government to bring about policy changes that will change our lives, and our children's lives forever.

Luckily, this time we have Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, an acknowledged student of the Depression, to guide us. In fact, one of his famous quotes is that we learned the lessons of the Crash of 1929 and won't repeat the mistakes that were made then which drove the nation into depression.
-------------------
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2008/1006/1222959318754.html

ON THE occasion of the 90th birthday of the Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman - celebrated at a symposium at the University of Chicago, in November 2002 - Ben S Bernanke, then governor of the US Federal Reserve Board, lauded Friedman and his longtime collaborator, Anna J Schwartz, for their seminal work, A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960.

In this classic tome of American economic history, Friedman and Schwartz lay the blame for the Great Depression squarely at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve by arguing that, at the point of acute crisis, its tight policies caused the failure of more than 40 per cent of banks in the US and led to massive deflation.

At the very moment when capital should have flowed into the economy, they argue, the Fed staunched it and by its policies unleashed instead the pervasive suffering that followed.

Friedman's and Schwartz's insights about the role of the Fed contradicted the conventional wisdom at the time, but have stood up well. "This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history," Bernanke said in his speech. He praised the book for its "development of historical detail" and for its "previously untapped" use of primary resources to craft its argument. "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve," Bernanke said. "I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
-------------------
Unfortunately, Bennie Boy, that doesn't preclude you as the Fed Chairman and some combination of the Treasury Department and the Congress from making new and improved mistakes that will change this nation forever.

At the rate old "Helicopter" Ben is dropping money on the financial system, he's clearly due for a nickname upgrade along the lines of "C-130 Cargo Plane" Ben.

In seeking to steer the nations monetary policy since he took over from the equally incompetent Alan Greenspan, Bernanke has shown all the skills of a hallucinogenic, teenage diver would exhibit in his first foray down the highway in a high performance sports car.

All of these clowns were only too happy to sit back and watch the Greenspan "housing bubble" deflate when the only apparent losers were homeowners. Now that the blood has splattered closer to home, and by home I mean on the pin-striped suits of the bankers they serve, the crisis reached proportions requiring emergency actions.
And by emergency actions, I mean grabbing for the taxpayers wallet and the savings of middle-class Americans, as well as their children and grand-children.

All of these destructive events happened under the Fed's watch:
- The Great Depression, through monetary expansion of the 20's which burst in the 30's (sound familiar)
- The S&L crisis (sound familiar)
- Long Term Capital Management (a hedge fund, sound familiar) failure of 1998 almost crippled the financial system
- The dot.com bubble burst in the 90's
- The 90's easy money era under Greenspan, brought about the housing current housing bubble that just burst and is spilling blood all over the street

And as we can see, some of the events are clearly repeating. Maybe we should treat the Fed like a dog that continually pees on the carpet. Nah, too good for them.

The first responsibility the Fed has, and the only one the European central banks concentrate on, is inflation, Why is this?: BECAUSE INFLATION IS A THIEF. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE.

- Inflation destroys savings making it impossible to save funds for life purchases like a home, college for he kids and retirement
- Inflation moves wealth from the poor and middle-class to the rich.
- Inflation distorts the economy by providing "easy money" to those who haven't earned it and since it is not "their own" money, they waste it on bad investments.
Think of people who were "flipping" houses and condos because of easy monetary policy. Where are those "flippers" now? Probably hanging out with the "day-traders" from the 1980's in some bar talking about the fortunes they made and lost.
- This economic distortion leads to subsequent unemployment, which affects the middle-class and poor disproportionately. Countries that have low inflation and solid economic policy tend to have very low unemployment (think Switzerland).
- Inflation allows governments to deficit spend. Borrow first, then print money out of thin air to attempt to eliminate or pay-back the borrowed dollars with cheaper dollars down the road.
- Inflation is a hidden tax on future purchasing power and the government spends the money in advance.

I don't even want to get into how the government distorts (hell, why don't I just say it - LIES ABOUT) the CPI figures released to the public. Why would they do this? To keep the public docile and many government payments are tied to the CPI. Think Social Security payment to grandma and grandpa.

It just seems like we get into some of the problems because the Fed also worries itself about economic growth as well. If someone can't handle one task very well, asking them to do two tasks simultaneously seems to be a stretch, right?

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, SEPTEMBER 30,1999:
In a move to help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action will...encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.

This step by the Clinton Administration, along with groups like ACORN and armed with provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRIA), openly badgered and threatened banks with lawsuits (charging red-lining or racial discrimination) and with threats to block any future mergers the bank might entertain if they did not allow this type of lending to explode.

Combine this with the repeal of Glass-Stegall and the Graham-Leach-Blilley Act that the Republicans in Congress promoted allowed banks and Wall Street firms to run wild. They promoted the "casino" mind-set that we see in the market today that is dominated by short-sellers, hedge funds and other speculators.

The SEC under Chairman Christopher Cox has been almost as incompetent and possibly corrupt as the Federal Reserve. To allow short-selling with little or no restriction (no uptick rule), much less-naked short-selling (you don't even have to borrow the stock anymore) has allowed wanton speculation and wild, irrational trading that we still see daily. There are margin requirements to actually BUY a stock, but no requirements on the short-side. This is completely irrational.

Equally irrational and throwing more gasoline on the growing fire the SEC allowed investment banks to increase their profits by taking on more leverage (risk). We're suffering the consequences of that unwinding of leverage today.

I don't even want to scratch underneath the Federal Reserve and the SEC and get down the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the mark to market rules that exacerbated the problem. If the above failure do not occur, then mark to market is not even an issue, in fact it's a positive.

So to review, we had:
- The GSE's (Fannie and Freddie) running wild
- The Federal Reserve provide the elixir of easy money
- Wall Street unshackled from regulators
- Government blessing provided by CRIA and the destruction of the regulatory walls provided by Glass-Stegall.
- Lowered mortgage underwriting standards
- Corrupt credit rating agencies violating the public interest
- Predatory borrowers AND lenders

And from our leaders we get finger-pointing, with neither side willing to look in the mirror and point the finger at themselves.

And then we wonder why Congress has a lower approval rating then the President.


From the fiasco of the first Hank Paulson-Ben Bernanke "rescue bill", to the subsequent new-and-improved Pelosi-Frank-Dodd-Paulson bill to the G-7 or 8 or however many clowns-stuffed-into-small-car measures there were, we've seen the market spit all measures back into the bureaucrats collective faces like a colicky new-born.

Is there any wonder why I think the following video would be an accurate depiction of the effectiveness of our leaders fiscal problem-solving abilities?




Nobody is arguing that some of these steps were taken with the best of intentions. Who doesn't want to own a home? In hindsight, now I know how I was able to qualify for a mortgage when--at the the time I applied--using some of the old-school underwriting standards, I was probably not the best candidate for mortgage approval.

But we didn't go for any of those exotic mortgages, using the rationale that if the terms sound to good to be true they probably aren't, we went for a traditional 30-year mortgage with a 10-15% down payment. So, we had some equity stake in the house. It wasn't given to us freely or too easily. People don't value things that are given to them as much as things they have to earn.

The unintended consequence was they devalued the American Dream of home ownership for everyone by turning it into something that was almost as easy to achieve as the prize at the bottom of a Cracker Jacks box. Thanks again, leaders.

NO MONEY DOWN, INTEREST ONLY PAYMENTS, NO INCOME VERIFICATION, NO JOB, NO PROBLEM--HECK, WE DON'T EVEN CARE IF YOU PAY THE MORTGAGE--WE'RE GOING TO PACKAGE IT AND SELL IT ANYWAY.

That's what some of the radio ads sounded like from some of these fly-by-night mortgage companies, and where was the Fed or any of the regulatory bodies when these spiels were flying around the airwaves. I know I thought, "How the heck are these guys going to stay in business?" Now we know, on the backs of Uncle Sam and his seemingly bottomless pit - the taxpayers wallet.

They've all collectively pissed on the American Dream of home ownership.

They've all collectively and continuously pissed on the faith and confidence of the public in our JUSTICE SYSTEM, OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM, AND FINALLY, OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

My only question is when are we a nation going to say - NO MAS, NO MORE?

There's an election coming up, we have a chance to put our money (what's left of it) where our mouth is, so to speak.

I have to say, under the circumstances--if any incumbent gets re-elected to go back and FINISH THE JOB--then we do deserve the government we continue to get.

My advice to guys like Bush, Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulson, Cox and their newest best-est buddies in the Congress Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank and others I'm sure I am leaving out should just quietly leave D.C., quietly go home and retire.

Don't write any books documenting your sorry-ass legacies.

Don't go out on any public-speaking tours, telling lies about what you did. We can see and feel the results better than you. We have to live with the consequences.

For all those guys, my enduring thoughts regarding their legacy can be summed up by former Tampa Bay Bucs coach John McKay's famous quote.

When asked about his team's execution during one of their many consecutive losses during their initial season, McKay replied, "I think it's a good idea".

SAME HERE.

I just have one simple question, just one. When do we get to this point, are we there yet?:

---------------------------
UPDATE-PAULSON EXPRESSES REGRET:

Washington (AP)- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Thursday expressed regret for the many errors made that led to the biggest financial crisis in seven decades, but he insisted the administration is pursuing the correct course now to end the debacle.

"We're not proud of all the mistakes that were made by many different people, different parties, failures of our regulatory system, failures of market discipline that got us here," Paulson said in an interview on Fox Business Network.

Well, at least we have that. I'll give him credit, he's the first one I've heard take some sort of ownership of the crisis. Of course he should. When he was in charge at Goldman Sachs, he advocated heavily for the SEC to loosen the purse strings on the leverage restrictions under the guise of keeping our financial system competitive with international markets. To which of course is the "Mom's Wisdom" logic: "If everyone else was jumping off a bridge would you? Do the right thing, NOT what everyone else is doing"
-----------------------------
Can somebody tell me what is wrong with McCain? Is the Republican strategy to NOT WIN the election?

It seemed in last nights debate as if somebody had to tell him he should be angry and had to coach him up as to what he needed to be angry about. Something like this:

Campaign Flukie: John, tonight we need you to show some anger, some passion about this economic situation we're in. The markets are tanking, people's 401K's are melting away faster then the polar icecaps.

John McCain: That's OK, my friend. That just means they'll need more beer. Did I tell you my wife Cindy is a beer magnate. And she's pretty hot too. ;) ;)

Campaign Flunkie: JOHN, THIS IS SERIOUS. PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING THEIR HOMES.

John McCain: Well my friend, I'll just explain to them that maybe they should have 7 or 8 homes like me and they wouldn't be so worried. In any event there's still lot's of beer. That should appeal to Joe Six-Pack. It shows I'm a regular guy, except for the glut of homes.

I think he has demonstrated that he's not much more than Bob Dole with a better personal story. And if it wasn't for Sarah Palin, he would have been down by 20 points and this election would have been over a long time ago. Good luck back in the Senate John.
------------------
SPEAKING OF MOM'S WISDOM: YOU'RE JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP. CHOOSE YOUR FRIENDS WISELY

SPEAKING WORDS OF WISDOM...........

FROM RASMUSSEN REPORTS:
In his first inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan delivered a line succinctly capturing the sentiment that elected him:

“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

A generation later, that attitude still resonates with a solid majority of Americans. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of voters agree with Reagan, and just 28% disagree.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/59_agree_with_ronald_reagan_government_is_the_problem

Based on the results of last weeks vote on the "bailout bill" it's too bad that 59% of the House and Senate don't recognize this sentiment.

Once again, we see how by creating a chicken-little like crisis and demonizing a select group of bad guys, our leaders can shape the agenda and transfer huge amounts of money and power from one select, favored group to another. SIMPLY AMAZING.

Once again, as usual, some of the same players who failed miserably and worked to create the huge hole we are in are rewarded by having more money thrown at them. But isn't that how government traditionally works? If the initial solution doesn't work, just keep throwing more money at it until it does work. A gross violation of the simple but elegant Rule of Holes:

Rule #1 - When you're in a hole, stop digging.

And so we are left with the poor choices of a candidate on the one hand who advocates a Robin Hood-esque tax policy and a socialist model as the mantra of the kind of change we need. Which is to say: the government to the rescue. And on the other hand, we have a more of the same policies approach that got us to this point in the first place. IT'S INSANE, ISN'T IT?


Maybe I'm the crazy one, but it seems to me that the one person on either ticket that the media likes the least--that the establishment feels is the least qualified to be the VP, much less President--is the one I would most like to see in charge.

And they are giving her the same dismissive treatment they gave to Ron Paul in the primaries. Why? Because both are candidates that the party-elitists on both sides fear will shake the establishment to its core. They will excise the dead, useless tissue from the bloated, necrotic bureaucratic body of our federal government and move power closer to the people where it belongs.

And the elitists fear this result greatly and will do everything they can to avoid it. Don't kid yourself, every candidate has tipped his cap to the "little people" who live on "Main Street" as part of the playbook to get elected. But not one of them achieved their status or feel they can maintain it, without continually prostituting themselves to the so-called "seat of power" in this country.

They may tip their caps to you every four years and pat you on the head and say "There, there now, don't worry. I'll take care of you when I get in". Then they give you a cookie and figuratively expect you to go away and leave them alone for four years so they can take care of the people that put them in their positions of power in the first place.

And trust me, there are no "little people" in those meetings. Nobody that lives on "Main Street". And they don't go to PTA meetings or soccer games or hockey games for that matter either. Have you ever seen them there? I haven't. That's part of the problem and it needs to be worked into the solution.

What we need eventually need is a ticket that is more dedicated to and capable of delivering KICKS to the seat of power and less is likely to have to deliver KISSES to it.

Then maybe we can talk about REAL CHANGE in this country and not the phony artifice we have been getting and will continue to get--REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS.


I get sick when I hear this CHANGE mantra from both sides, because neither side represents real change. And it's silly to hear one side parrot "More of the same" when anyone with slightly more brainpower then a parrot can see that regardless of the eventual winner, we will get a healthy dose of more of the same. There will just be a different name on the White House stationary.

Maybe we need something radical--like a Jesse Ventura-Ron Paul third-party ticket in 2012.

Yeah, that's the ticket!!!

My only fear is that by the time this option is available to us, the powers that be will not only continue to dig us deeper into the hole we find ourselves in--but instead of stepping back and figuring out how to get out of the hole they've dug--will blunder their way into burying us all with the dirt they have excavated.
--------------------------
UPDATE - Once again from Rasmussen Reports polling:
Coming Soon:
59% Would Vote to Replace Entire Congress

Much like that old lawyer joke, this would be a good start. It would change the tone and the atmosphere in Washington and get these knuckleheads acting like the public servants they are supposed to be.

When you see some of these tools speak to you through the media, do any of them sound as if they view their role as one of "serving the public"? Maybe in the old Twilight Zone - "To Serve Man" episode sense (a truly classic episode), but not in the sense most of us expect that phrase to be applied.

Think of that quality in your elected official the next time you vote and remember one of the popular definitions of character: doing the right thing even when you think nobody is looking.
--------------------------
HOW WASHINGTON WORKS O'REILLY VS. BARNEY FRANK:


---------------------------
NOTE TO SARAH PALIN AND THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN STAFF - STOP CRYING:




Katie Couric didn't really engage in a gotcha question by asking you to provide an example of historical Supreme Court decisions other than Roe vs. Wade that you did not agree with. She actually teed one up for you to respond as follows:

The worst Supreme Court decision ever and the one that illustrates the philosophical difference between the two tickets would have to be Helvering v. Davis (1937) which redefined the General Welfare clause of the Constitution and upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

This allowed the federal government to engage in the type of redistribution of wealth policies which we see today in our opponents tax and economic policy.

James Madison argued the the General Welfare Clause was not an additional power granted to the government but a restatement of the powers enumerated in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution which were to "provide for the common Defense and General Welfare."

Alexander Hamilton held that the General Welfare clause was a distinct source of additional authority which allowed Congress to "lay and collect Taxes" and spend the proceeds for purposes including, but not limited to the enumerated or stated powers. Essentially, this view holds the Congress' powers are nearly all-inclusive.

Madison's view was that only those powers specifically stated or enumerated in the Constitution were intended by the founders and that if the General Welfare clause was intended to be all-inclusive, then the exercise of stating specifically enumerated powers to be granted to Congress would be useless, excess verbiage added to the Constitution.

The broader, Hamiltonian interpretation makes a mockery of the notion of a limited federal government intended by the founders and opened the floodgates for the type of redistributive, overreaching federal government we see today.

Further, this erroneous decision was made by the Supreme Court under the duress of FDR's attempt to pack the Court with New Deal supporters. The Supreme Court erroneously rewrote the Constitution with this decision, which highlights the need to have judges and Supreme Court nominees who would not stray from the Constitution and write laws from the bench.

You would have been able to highlight many of the fundamental differences between a McCain and Obama administration in regards to tax policy, economic policy and judicial philosophy.

In fact you were given a second bite of the apple with your interview with Chuck Cameron of Fox News the day after the VP debate and, although you did cite a couple of other grievous errors by the Supremes, this fundamentally flawed decision remained unmentioned.

I'm not sure who is running the campaign over there, but let me give you guys and gals a word of advice. The idea is to try to WIN. (Unless you are affiliated with the Chicago Cubs baseball team). OUCH!!

To quote Herman Edwards, "You play to win the game. HELLO!!"

HERMAN EDWARDS SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN:


I will say though, you guys forfeit the right to complain about "gotcha" questions from now on. Be better prepared and do your homework.

<"( );::::::;~ ~;::::::;( )">

CHANGE OF HEART FOR SARAH BARACUDA

I'm not sure why anyone who gives this woman a fair hearing and is being honest with themselves does not come away entirely impressed with her. The pro-choice crowd shows it's true colors when they choose to attack someone who makes a choice other that that which they espouse. Pro-life is a perfectly legal, moral and ethical position. It is attacked simply because it is different from the pro-choice viewpoint. You almost cannot get any more un-American then that. It's a political oxymoron for the pro-choice crowd to be attacking a person's choice.

Anyway, here is a little ditty to honor the brightest, freshest face to hit politics in quite some time. Any resemblance to a similar song by Heart is purely coincidental.
----------------
Sarah Barracuda

McCain has a new friend
I thought he was dead….…today
You simply took our hearts away
Handles a gun
Chooses pro-life
And change – Sarah never fails

You bring real change to your community
I bet you’ll do the same in D.C
You’ll have them down, down, down, down on their knees
Now won’t you? Sarah Baracuda?

Back in the day, good old boys reined
Selling their integrity
You took the reigns, and showed them the way
To tell right from wrong, You sent them all home
And then came, better days

Now if the rad jet don’t do the trick
You better put it on e-bay real quick
You’re gonna change, change, change, change, change DC politics
Ahhhhhhhh, Sarah Baracuda

Grease us, grease you, the good old boys said
Make no waves and you get ahead
You…I think you changed the game on them too
Pit-bulls snarl and small town charm
With a hockey mom’s grit
Looks like a winner – no time for silly fools

Now if the rad jet don’t do the trick
You better put it on e-bay real quick
You’re gonna change, change, change, change DC politics
Ahhhhhhhh, Sarah Baracuda

I <3 (HEART) SARAH PALIN
--------------------------
So, if the Democratic primaries did not illustrate vividly enough that they are the party that sees color and gender and uses it as a wedge to cloud their decision making, then the reaction to Sarah Palin has clinched the deal. I'm disgusted with myself that I even gave a moments thought to considering Obama as a candidate. From the moment of Hillary Clinton's speech to the DNC, my opinion is they chose the wrong candidate. She should have demonstrated that sort of passion and excitement long ago.

It seems like choice means their choice. Only Democrats can offer a woman candidate suitable to the American political palate. Or an African-America candidate for that matter.

Nobody knows for sure who was further down McCain's veep list, but another rising star in the Republican party who would have made an outstanding pick as well, is Representative J.C. Watts (R-OK):

-------------------------------------------
J.C. WATTS NOTES FROM WIKIPEDIA:

Watts captured national attention in 1996 with a speech before the Republican national convention, when he said, "You see character does count. For too long we have gotten by in a society that says the only thing right is to get by and the only thing wrong is to get caught. Character is doing what's right when nobody is looking."

Continuing to be a rising star for the national Republican Party, Watts was selected in 1997 to deliver the Republican response to President Bill Clinton's State of the Union Address. In an interview with the Washington Post, Watts chastised some black Democrats and civil rights leaders as "race-hustling poverty pimps", whose careers he said depend on keeping blacks dependent on the government.

In 1998, Watts was chosen by the Republican House Leadership to be the chairman of the House Republican Conference, the fourth highest position of leadership in the House of Representatives (behind the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Majority Whip).

Watts has been critical of the Republican party's 2008 presidential candidates because they "don't show up" for black voters:
“Republicans want to say we reach out. But what we do instead is 60 days before an election, we'll spend some money on black radio and TV or buy an ad in Ebony and Jet, and that's our outreach. People read through that.”

-------------------------------
It's becoming apparent that this is not your father's or grandfather's Republican Party anymore.

GO MCCAIN-PALIN 2008!!!