What is Racism?

Don't answer the question yet

First, take a look at this article. And the picture.

Now answer my initial question.

If the picture was of George and Laura Bush, would it be racist? Bill and Hillary Clinton? Then why is depicting Obama and the Missus the same way racist?

We are all (allegedly) descended from apes; why is the depiction of one couple racist and another not?

What if the artist who  doctored this photo is black; is it racist then?

Or is it only racist because folks who are not black are seeing this image? What if it was only available in Ebony magazine; would it then be a racist image?

I have complained before about how there is hard racism and soft racism. Hard of course is the KKK. That's easy to identify.

But the Left practices a soft racism; one they refuse to admit, and Obama is either the beneficiary or the cause of the practice. Like the idea that any criticism of Obama is racist.

Ask yourself; is it racist because they can use that rusty canard as a shield, or is it racist because it is not 'proper' to criticize anyone of another race, irrespective of the validity of the criticism?

Back to the image; Remember Chimpy McHitler Bush? How about the images?

If the Obama image is racist, then so are these. Or maybe you don't think they are. Why not? Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander right?

If the only response you have is that the Obama images are racist because they are black, then I will accuse you off being racist; a soft racist. One who feels people of color need to be protected; they aren't capable of defending themselves.

Do you feel that way? Why don't you consider your self a racist?

President Paul has a Nice Ring, Doesn't It?

I found this article though a Facebook Post. It is written from a Democrat, OH NO WHAT WILL WE DO!!!!! perspective, but still raises some good points.

"Don’t laugh but Rand Paul could be our next president" is the title. Apparently this news scares the daylights out of the Left side of the country. Probably because he could draw a large number of voters not just Republicans, but Independents, Libertarians and yes, even a substantial number of Democrats.

In short he could beat the margin of cheat Democrats have become accustomed to winning with.

Face it; Rand Paul has the attractive ideas the country is looking for; smaller government; lower taxes, less government intrusion. >His one weak spot; foreign policy. But that is where is is probably strongest with the left side. He wants to end the foreign entanglements, which sounds like a good thing, and some of it is.

But the world is like a 6th grade classroom; everybody is either your friend or your enemy. Switzerland is like the teacher; for all appearances neutral, but does play favorites. You have to make friends, or you have made enemies.

And making friends with countries cost more than picking them early for Dodgeball or sharing your Fig Newtons. You still need to pick them early for games and you still need to share your goodies, it's just that the games have higher stakes and the goodies have multi-billion dollar price tags.

 I wish the law allowed the Presidential Candidate to announce who they would pick for certain cabinet positions. Knowing who Rand Paul would pick for his Secretaries of State and Defense would pur my mind at ease about the Foreign policy issue.

He's on ALL the Channels?!?!?!

Tonight is Obama's 5th State of the Union Address. Thank God for Netflix.

I am not a political junkie really, although I do follow politics and try to influence political thought. I'm not a junkie, a 'politics is the Alpha and Omega' type of person. I'm average; I do have other interests.  I don't think the average person will watch this speech; anyone with an interest to equal mine will just watch the reports on Wednesday morning.

Kinda like checking the box scores after a college game you be interested in, but not interested enough to actually watch. And already know how its going to be. Like if Notre Dame plays the Air Force Academy; you know who is going to win, and you know the score will be lopsided as Hell. You check the score to see just how badly they get whacked.

I know the speech will be full of blather, half-truths, out-and-out lies and 'misinterpreted' events. None of which will be called out in the lame stream media. And they all will be said with perfect elocution. 

There will be attacks on opponents and calls for new laws to correct things that are unjust. There will be points made of naming names of friends, and pointing them out. And whoever the unfortunate soul is who gets picked to sit next to Michelle will get introduced for some type of service to the country.

And if thee isn't a glowing report on the current status of Obamacare I'll eat my hat.

And I will miss it all; for many reasons. But mainly because the sound of Obama's voice grates on my every nerve like fingernails on a chalkboard. Initially anyway; then it starts to sound like the metal on metal squeal of a set of truck brakes, wore out and overheating as the truck slides past you on the interstate.

I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it think it is the tone; the one he uses when he is talking to us peons; where he tries to display his worthiness to be our ruler; the tone that sounds like- no matter how sophisticated the word- he is lecturing a first grade class on the finer points of toilet training.

I don't know why I intensely dislike Obama. Carter I respected as my President; Clinton too. Maybe because Carter was so damned ineffectual, and Clinton was a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so their Leftist principles didn't seem so prominent. Although they may have been trying to turn this country into a communist paradise, it didn't have that tone.

Obama doesn't care what you think. This will become a leftist country and he doesn't care who knows.

I know what some of you are thinking; its because he's, you know,.... (black).

Well, that, to me is a racist remark. It means no one not white has the ability to be wrong in any opinion. It means anyone who has a difference of opinion with any non-white holds that opinion solely because of a person's race. It means non-whites cannot be held responsible for the way they think or act. And you don't see that as racist?

Why not?

Isn't the definition of racism treating some differently because of visible differences?

Whether that treatment a harsh racism, like the KKK, or a softer racism, a failure of expectation, based solely on someone's looks?

Or is it only one side of the political debate has the authority to decide who is racist, and who is not?

Indistinguishable

I hope you will forgive the lack of posting the last few days; events overtook time, and something had to give.

But I'm back now; ready to go.

But where to? How about Facebook?

What? Facebook? Yes; Facebook. To share some BREAKING NEWS !

I don't care who you are or how you take it, that's funny right there....

Okay; now that I've gotten THAT out of my system...

The part that isn't funny is that we are talking about the 2016 Presidential race already and nobody bats an eye.

Because we started talking about 2016 in 2012. And there were brief mentions of 2016 in 2008. It has become a never ending cycle; one we have no relief from. The question is; is that a bug or a feature?

Face it; how many of us are big enough political junkies that we want to be immersed in politics completely and consistently? We have other concerns; other interests; hobbies, families, jobs.

Somewhere on one of my many bookshelves I have a copy of Theodore H. White’s Making of the President: 1964. The story starts in Dallas, November of 1963. Not particularly because of the assassination, but the reason for JFK's trip to Dallas- to kick off his re-election campaign. A year out from Election Day; not 4 years out.

And at that year out point it was only the political junkies paying attention; not the media. Real public interest didn't start until the Conventions, in July and August. You got whipped into a political frenzy for a few months, voted in early November, and packed away the political trappings like a child would pack up his room before heading off to college; it would be 4 years before the fever hit again.

Today we are constantly bombarded with the political. Hell; we have been told since 2000 that Hillary was inevitable in 2004; 2008; 2016. 

Just like a kid facing another week of school in June; we don't care. We are burned out.

And this is where the bug turns into a feature; we are burned out; we tune out and stop caring. The media doesn't stop bombarding us with 'information' we just stop listening.

And by the time we enter the voting booth in Election Month, it is Name Recognition Lottery Time, and the name(s) we have been bombarded with for YEARS require a Pavlovian response.

Bug, or Feature?

The thing is (HOPEFULLY) this; maybe it will all backfire again. Maybe 2008 wasn't a fluke. Maybe Obama wasn't the "Magic Negro" he is purported to be, but just a latter-day Bill Clinton; an alternative to what else there was. He was the only one to even consider running against the "Inevitable" Hillary.

Was it just palpable Hillary burnout in 2008 that has saddled us with this fiasco?

I am also not discounting the Bush burnout in 2008. The Hillary fatigue got us Obama the Candidate; the Bush fatigue got us Obama the President.

2012? That was just massive voter fraud, up and down the board.

But that is another post.

BC Ain't PC?

I was looking for a subject for today's post and found this cartoon strip. Which hits the nail on the head.

Nobody is happy with either party, but for vastly different reasons.

Dems are unhappy with Repubs because they are Repubs, and are angry at the Dems because they aren't Left enough.

Repubs are unhappy with Dems because they are Dems, and unhappy with Repubs because they aren't Right enough.

Okay; so maybe they're reasons AREN'T vastly different, just the reasons for their reasons.

The question each party has to ask (and successfully answer) is where do the voters stand?

Kind of simplified, but we can break it down into 5 positions:

Far Right: Right: Center: Left: Far Left.

Earth shattering isn't it? Yeah I know; nothing new to see here.

The chart isn't new, but maybe my analysis of it is. Because the question is where are the voters?

First; they aren't evenly distributed; Second; they aren't static and Third; they aren't mobile.

And no, the last two aren't contradictory.  Very few voters will change their minds on a specific issue. Other than the change from young liberal to older conservative. But in this case they are just replacing their dying parents and likewise being replaced by their growing children. And most of the time they go from left leaning Center to right leaning Center; that aren't going from Left to Right.

Then there are those who start at Far Left. They tend to stay there. Nobody who shouted "Power to the People" in the 1960's grew up to join the John Birch Society. Unless they only shouting "Power" to pick up chicks. Trying to attract women will make men do strange things; sometimes Very Strange things. But you see my point; they are static in their position.

Same with those on the Far Right. If they are God, Guns and Country at 18, they will be God, Guns and Country at 68.  Static.

The Center is a little more fluid. Sometimes they are left leaning Center, bumping up against being Left, and other times they are right leaning Center, bumping up against being Right. A great swilling mass, always stable in ultimate position, but always in motion within the position. Kind of like stirring a big bowl of pudding. right around the spoon the pudding is always deeper than anywhere else n the bowl, but not really deep enough to make a big difference in the depth anywhere else.

The spread breaks down like this: Far Right- 21%; Right- 21%; Center- 25%; Left-20% and Far Left- 13%. The far left has the fewest adherent, but they are the most vocal. Power to the People!, remember?

Assuming all of there groups are static, how can they also be mobile?

Because changes in government will cause their relative positions to change. the problem is they aren't on a line, but in a circle. Your 'Power to the People' Lefty isn't too far away from a limited government Tea Partier when you get right down to it. They want the same thing, just have different methods of trying to get it.

Which brings us back to my premise; where do the voters stand?

It depends; what is the issue?

So much has been made over the years of the Reagan Democrats, and why they were willing to cross party lines to vote for a Republican. Here is my take on it: Reagan said it best; "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me". Reagan carried the old line Democrat principles into the Republican Party, and bridged the gap between the two. It hasn't worked since, and will never work again. All of the old line Democrats are gone already, and no one will follow a so-called Progressive from the Dems to the Repubs, even if one was so foolhardy as to try.

And no Repub would bother to vote for them either, knowing the conversion wasn't Saul-like, but one of opportunity.

So, after all of this prattling; WHERE DO THE VOTERS STAND?!?!?!!?

Right where you would expect the to be; in favor of limited government, less taxation and a strong defense. They may say it different ways, and define 'limited' or 'less' or 'strong' a little differently, but other than the 13% fringe left, this is what they want.

So why won't either party give it to them?

A note to Mitch McConnell

Here is a copy of the note I just emailed to Senator McConnell:

Senator McConnell:

Can you explain the logic behind not granting all forms of communication the same constitutional and Supreme Court reviewed protections? If US Mail and wired phone lines require a warrant, why shouldn't email and wireless phone conversations?

I have a 4th Amendment right to privacy in my papers and in my communications. The government does not, at any level, have a right to review those communications absent a warrant. PERIOD.

I have voted for you that last four times you ran for the Senate, but it has become increasingly clear that you are no longer a resident of Kentucky, but a resident of Washington, D.C.. It is time Kentuckians found a fellow citizen, like Senator Rand Paul, to represent us.

2014 can not come soon enough. 

If he reads the message, will he get it?

I doubt it.

Funny Business in Washington

I have been holding this post until after Christmas, just because I promised only happy thoughts before Christmas.

I can't come down on one side or the other; they each bother me equally.

And then I found another strip that so much so quickly:

I'm not sure how the cartoonist was looking at the issue, but Doesn't Cooperate can cover a lot of ground. My first sense was that they don't cooperate with the people who elected them, but he could also mean, given the current 'fiscal cliff' fiasco, that they don't cooperate with each other. Also true.

But it seems to me the only time the Politicians do cooperate is when they are screwing over the people who elected them.

The one exception I can think of is Rand Paul, my Senator from Kentucky. Not being a politician or a lawyer, he understands the evil that government is.

He just put forth an amendment to the FISA bill to increase Fourth Amendment protections on electronic communications; basically to give email and cell phones conversations protection from warrant-less searches. Here is the transcript of his speech on the Senate Floor.

Its about time we had some one in Washington who understands what the people want and is ready to fight for it.

Apparently, based on the vote in the Senate, we are at least 79 people short of what we need, including my other Senator, the one I don't claim much, Mitch McConnell.

He will hear from me today.

Debate; Part Deux

Well; time for some more self inflicted pain. Another round of Obama-Romney.

I have probably mentioned before that I always found the folks on the left who said they couldn't stand to hear George Bush's voice tiresome. He was the President; how could you hate a man you never met that much?

And then Obama was elected. I turned off his acceptance speech after less than 30 seconds; his voice irritated every nerve I had. In actual fact, I heard more of his voice two weeks ago in the first debate more than I have in his entire presidency. Combined.

And tonight I will force myself to listen to another 45 minutes of him, give or take 20 minutes, depending on when and if the moderator can shut him up.

Tomorrow's post will again be a review, but I expect Romney to again be the victor by a wide margin, even with two opponents; I fully expect the moderator to be Obama II, doing her best to keep Obama from looking like a complete moron again.

The talking head consensus is that Obama will do better because of the Town Hall format. I don't see why this format is any different than the more formal style, He still won't be able to use a teleprompter.

The Missouri Mess

Sometimes you can see exactly what's going on, and sometimes you can't. You look at a situation and just are forced to scratch your head.

I'm talking about the Missouri Senate Race, and the Republican candidate, Todd Akin. I am very curious what everybody in this mess is smoking.

Background is this, basically. Representative Akin in Pro-Life, to the point that he opposes abortion for rape and incest. Apparently he was on a TV interview recently where he 'misspoke':

The uproar began Sunday, when St. Louis television station KTVI aired an interview in which Akin was asked if he would support abortions for women who have been raped.
"It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said.

First, in Todd's defense, I seem to recall being told exactly that same information in high school Biology class. I have no idea if the theory is still considered sound, or even if it was considered sound in the late seventies, but I seem to recall that if a woman was raped, her body would endure stresses that would create hormones that would cause a 'spontaneous abortion'. If I remember correctly, this was presented in Biology class as fact. So, he may have had some basis for misspeaking.

But my concern is the reaction from the RIGHT. I was listening to Hannity yesterday when he was brow-beating this guy to quit the Senate race. It raised my eyebrows, especially after all of the Tea Party support that Hannity has proclaimed.

In the Primary, Akin was the Tea Party favorite, handily beating the party's backed nominee. Allegedly some of commercials that supported him in the Primary were paid for by Clare McCaskill, his Democratic opponent in the General Election. Whether it is true, or just sour grapes that McCaskill was picking the candidate easiest to beat in the general election, Akin did win.

Yesterday Hannity was trying to guilt this guy into quitting the race, making it seem that the entire recapturing of the Senate for the Republicans rides on Akin beating McCaskill; a determination that is now in doubt. He was constantly brow beating Akin with how important his win was to the Republican party.

But Akin believes he can still win. and is refusing to quit. So, in response, the National Republican party is threatening to not contribute any funds to his campaign.

It is vitally important to win Missouri, but apparently not important enough to back Akin? What!?!?!?!

I'll tell you what I think. I think the Republican establishment is getting afraid of all of the Tea Party candidates, and has seen a way to get rid of one. That last thing they want is to have a 51 member Senate, with 10 of them being Tea Party. It might mean the end of big government.

The only thing that doesn't fit is Hannity's spiel yesterday. Unless the Tea Party support from him has been a shill, and he is actually an establishment plant?

Otherwise, I don't see how this one misstatement can become that big of an issue.

Something just doesn't pass the smell test with me.

UPDATE: Listening to Limbaugh right now. He started off talking big support for Akin, but them drifted into a call for him to make a "Good" decision, with "what's best for the country in mind". Apparently also, if Akin quits before 5:00pm today, the republican Party gets to pick the replacement.

Something didn't smell right before; now it is reaching the high odor of rotting flesh. I think I'm right; the Republican establishment is scared to death that they will need to take Tea Party concerns in to account while governing in 2013.

And their not liking it.

So Long, Geoff Davis

I knew Representative Geoff Davis was retiring at the end of this term, and I am going to miss him. He was ending his 4th term, and that should be long enough for anybody in the cesspool. I think the only things that could spend longer than 8 years in a cesspool is the stuff you flush to a cesspool.

And yes Mitch McConnell, I'm talking about you.

Rep.Davis was always a reliable vote for common sense. He was a frequent caller on the morning show on 550, and his reports on the doings in Washington were always a breath of fresh air.

Except for once.

Right after Boenher raised the debt ceiling Geoff was on the morning show defending the action. He was doing it, but you could tell it was a distasteful duty. A few months afterward he announced his pending retirement,

The thing that has me concerned now is the euphemistic 'spending more time with his family' retirement. I seriously hope that if there is a family crisis, all works out for the best, and my thoughts are with the Davis Family.

Rep. Davis is an honorable man, and my most fervent hope is that there is an issue with his family, and that his sudden retirement isn't because of a pending action in the House that he wants no part of.

Is You Is, Or Is You Ain't...

I watched O Brother Where Art Thou? last weekend for probably the fiftieth time. Yeah, I know it's a George Clooney movie; I like it in spite of him. The music is just flat great; the other actors are superb and it fulfills my basic requirements for a movie; a good story, convincingly told.

But that's not what I'm writing about today. Today our focus is a little tighter.

In case you aren't aware of the movie, and its various plots, one of the plots concerns the gubernatorial election in the state of Mississippi, where Governor 'Pappy' O'Daniel is being challenged by a fellow by the name of Homer Stokes. Toward the end of the movie Stokes is having a campaign event where George Clooney and his fellow escapees show up and barge the stage and sing a couple of songs.

Just prior to this scene Clooney  and company had busted up a KKK lynching that was being led by Stokes.

When he sees Clooney and his crew up on the stage he grabs a microphone and proceeds to denounce the crew in some rather vague but specific racial terms. He finishes his speech with the line:

"Is you is, or is you ain't my constituency?" (video at the link)

What the Hell is the meaning of this post? If you watched the video- and remember this movie is from 2000- I can't help but see Obama as Homer Stokes.

He is out on the campaign trail almost daily, and although they have not physically pulled the plug on his microphone or run him out of town on a rail, it is happening metaphorically.

Look at Nancy Pelosi, recommending nobody go to the Democratic Convention for crying out loud.

I can just see Homer Obama standing in the middle of an empty hall, shouting "Is you is, or is you ain't my constituency?", while Pelosi bends down to unplug his mike.

Sometimes Life does imitate Art.

Ya Wanna Rethink That Choice?

Yesterday I put up this post, and this morning I heard somethng on the radio I just had to add.

Apparently Obama stopped at Skyline Chili for lunch before he left town.

For lunch he had two cheese coneys and a Bean 4-way.

He declined the onions because of meetings he had later in the day.

Considering the orifice he mostly comminicates from, I would have thought skipping the Beans would have been more appropriate.

I also heard that only 1200 folks showed up; for a hall that holds 3500. And the one they interviewed on the radio was from North Carolina.

Toast.

Well, So Much For That Promise

Today is July 6th, and this will be only my 4th post.

In my defense, I did take on a project for work that has eaten into my time more than I expected. And the 4th of July was a day long affair.

Literally.

My oldest boy and the #1 grandson showed up at 9:30 on the 4th. And they weren't the first guests.

Some folks came on the 3rd and camped out. So, technically, we had company on the 4th at 12:00 midnight.

Folks came and went all day long, right through the last of the fireworks about 10:00.

It's kinda hard to leave your own party to do a blog post.

The Young'un asked what was so special about July 4th. So I started reciting the Declaration of Independence. She looked at me a little sideways and said: "Really?".

It made me realize how hard it is to explain our freedom to somebody who has never known any other way of life. And it is equally as hard to explain what we are losing to the youngsters who never had it.

I guess that's because so much of what used to a FREEDOM has been redefined as a RISK. Like smoking inside and actual building. Or riding a bike without a helmet. Or not wearing a seatbelt. Or riding in the bed of a pickup truck.

Each of these activities is a risk, but a calculated one. Yes you can get hurt, but what are the odds?

And individual behavior would moderate the risk. Like riding in the bed of a pickup. Sitting with your back to the cab while the truck is in motion minimizes the risk involved. Walking around with a beer in your hand while on the entrance ramp to the expressway tends to increase the risk.

Guess whose activities were cited when making this activity illegal? So the millions of folks who minimized the risk are criminals, and the idiots with the beer are still dying. Sure, they're dying as criminals, but the law has not modified their behavior, just the behavior of the folks who were modifying the risk anyway.

And now we have a precedent for the next step.

That is the interesting thing about Freedom; we win it all at once, and lose it one little piece at a time.

The Magna Carta was in some respects a Declaration of Independence for English Noblemen. Those freedoms eventually migrated down, as the noble class increased in size and their descendents became less noble and more common. And then they started disappearing. Especially in the colonies. Freedoms that were once held as inviolate, became violate.

The trouble was, at least for the King, was that the people KNEW what they losing, and fought to keep the Freedom they had.

A percentage of the Founding Fathers did not want to found a new country. They wanted to stay a part of Britain, but as an equal partner, not a slave state. The King had a choice, and he choose unwisely.

And over the last 70 years those hard won Freedoms have been chipped away at. Always for good reasons (remember- Never Let a GOOD Crisis Go To Waste), and but never, in my opinion, is there a reason good enough to stifle Liberty.

Well, maybe next year we will have more reason to Celebrate.

Or, possibly, won't be able to celebrate at all.

John Roberts Did WHAT!?!?!?!

I'm not sure yet how I feel about yesterdays Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.

One side of me is adamantly, virulently opposed to the very existence of a law that controls a very personal choice. That side says the court made a horrendous mistake yesterday. And just the fact that Roberts joined the Dark Side of Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer is kind of disturbing.

But, some of the legal commentators I have been reading say that Roberts' opinion has gutted the power of the Commerce Clause. If that is true, then maybe the whole fargin' Obama Presidency has been worth it.

Barely.

The Commerce Clause is probably the most bastardized clause in the entire Constitution. Second would be the 14th Amendment, which somehow manages to have 'emanations from a penumbra'. But, I digress.

In order to get the Constitution adopted by the several states back in 1787 several of its framers wrote a series of pieces, called, collectively, The Federalist Papers, to be published in the newspapers of the day to explain the reasoning behind the various parts of the new Constitution to aid in its adoption.

One thing not made clear to a lot of folks today is the power the states had at the time. The power of the Crown did not devolve to the Continental Congress; it devolved to the various states. Each state became its own Nation, and adopting the new Constitution would cede some of that power to the new Federal Government.

The European Common Market and the Euro are a modern example, with the exception that countries did not lose their autonomy and the ability to remove themselves from the Common Market. It is solely an economic confederation. The Constitution created an economic and a political country, out of once were independent states. Four score an seven years later it was conclusively proven that the states did not have the power to secede. But again, I digress.

I have a copy of The Federalist Papers. 648 pages in paperback, including the index, notes, a copy of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation and the Forward. This is the men who WROTE the Commerce Clause explaining what it meant. How many of the 600 pages deal with the Commerce Clause? 8.

Yep. EIGHT. The single most powerful (in modern interpretation) clause in the entire Constitution earns about 1% of the comments.

It goes back to the realities of the post- Revolutionary States. Each was a sovereign country, and each had the powers of a sovereign nation, including the authority to set tariffs and have its own Customs House. Virginia would have its own tariff on goods from Europe, as well as import restrictions on, say, corn from Maryland or North Carolina,

Obviously, if we became a single country there could not be import and export duties between the several states, and the new Federal Government would set the rules for trading with foreign partners.

Like the majority of the (original) Constitution, simple and logical. And it took 140 years for this simple, logical language to become twisted.

And yeah, a Democrat was responsible. In my opinion the second worst President in the history of the Union; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; FDR. (First is of course Obama. Third and Fourth are LBJ and JEC- James Earl Carter). During FDR's 12 years in office he managed to persuade the Supreme Court that a farmer growing grain on his own land to feed his own cattle- in which neither the cattle nor the grain crossed any state lines- had an effect on interstate commerce, and was therefore subject to Federal Regulation.

So much for the plain and simple language of the Constitution.

Well, apparently I have once again taken the long way around the barn.

So, to bring this home; if the commentators I have read are correct, and this is another Pyrrhic victory for Obama, then maybe I can live with this decision.

One blog I read this morning (which I of course found through Instapundit) Five Possible Silver linings in the Obamacare Decision also lists as a Silver Lining the idea that by keeping Obamacare alive will energize the Republican base this election season, and create the perfect climate for its total repeal in Congress.

I guess I am too multi-faceted, because there is one side of me that's wants Congress to do a total repeal. I am totally against the Courts legislating from the bench, so maybe Congress is where the death of Obamacare needs to happen.

Now all we need are the votes to make it happen come next January.

Where Do We Go From Here?

This whole Trayon Martin situation is disturbing to me.

I don't understand how anybody can make a decision on who was right and who was wrong based solely on what they have been told by the media. And yet millions have done so.

And who was right and who was wrong hinges on so many little things we don't know.

the problem is, those points aren't making news; just things that will force a certain opinion are being promoted. Simply; we're being played.

Take the photo issue. The picture we are told is Mr. Martin is actually him at 13, not 17. Is that the most recent photo they have, or does it just portray him the way he is supposed to be portrayed- as fresh faced, small muscled kid?

And the descriptions of George Zimmerman as white. Never mind his Jewish father or Hispanic mother. Doesn't fit the narrative. So he becomes a white Hispanic. A what?

Then there is the 911 call about trailing Mr. Martin. Mr Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he is following Mr. Martin, and the dispatcher states that 'we don't need you to do that'. Media filters are saying the cops ordered him not to follow Mr. Martin. False; he is only told that the dispatch center doesn't 'need' Mr. Zimmerman to follow Mr. Martin. But having Mr. Zimmerman disregard police orders to follow Mr. Martin makes him appear very aggressive, which fits the narrative.

Here is what I think happened, based on the facts I have heard. Is this the truth? I have no way of knowing.

Mr. Zimmerman lives in a gated community that has had a few robberies lately. As a self appointed community watch captain he is patrolling the community with a legal firearm. He sees a stranger, dressed in the universal uniform of the troublemaker, and follows him to see what, if anything, he is up to. Mr. Martin objects to this, and confronts Mr. Zimmerman. we will probably never know what was said in this confrontation, but we do know Mr. Zimmerman wound up on his back at one point, and suffered a bloody nose and cuts to the back of his skull.

And Mr. Martin wound up dead.

The local police looked at all of the facts at the time this incident happened (a month ago), and concluded Mr. Zimmerman acted properly.

Slowly some additional information about Mr. Martin has come out, since the explosion of interest in the case pushed by the national race-baiter coalition. Mr. Martin has been suspended from school at least 3 times, the latest- and the reason he was in Sanford FL instead of his home in Miami- was 10 days for possession of a baggie with pot residue and a pot pipe.

So Mr. Martin is not the innocent lad with an ice tea a Skittles the narrative is meant to lead us to believe.

So what is my point?

The point is we can't try a case like this, or any case, in the court of public opinion. Media fails to provide all of the facts. Some through poor reporting, some through missing information, and some through pushing a narrative. I have no more interest in convicting Mr. Zimmerman than I do convicting Mr. Martin.

But I am curious as to why all of the interest in this case a month late.

And the complete lack of interest by the Media and the Sharpton crowd in the multiple deaths in the rest of the nation of young black men, killed by other young black men.

I guess Sharpton waited as long as he could for a cop to shoot a black teen, and had to settle for a neighborhood watch captain.

Egypt: Now What?

As I mentioned in this post, we have an interest in what goes in the rest of the world. I may not be my brother's keeper, but I sure should be his helper.

The problem in Egypt is the disconnect between the people and their government. On the radio today there was a report from Cairo where the reporter repeated what he had heard from some of the protesters in the square. Apparently there was at least one protester who felt the American government should have done more for the people of Egypt, and less for the government in the form of Mubarak.

Great Idea!

Now, how do we implement it?

Governments have to deal with governments. The folks in charge may not have a legitimate claim to being in charge, but they are the legally constituted folks what be in charge. And damn the bad luck we can't do anything about that.

Take North Korea. Other that the Chinese and Iran (talk about your strange bedfellows), there probably isn't a country on the face of this Earth that wouldn't love to see a regime change in North Korea. How do we go about it?

Declare war on North Koreans? Have our army fight their army? Would China join in? On who's side? And the end game would be what?

Thousands or more dead on both sides, wanton destruction of the Korean peninsula and eventually freedom and reunification.

Would that be best for the North Koreans? Set them free, but destroy the population and the landscape?

And who knows the cost for the South Koreans? Remember, North Korea has at least one nuclear weapon, and probably wouldn't hesitate to use it on Seoul, if it could, or Pyongyang if it couldn't.

Would that be better or worse for the North Koreans than living under the current regime?

Tough call, ain't it?

And Pyongyang is on our ENEMIES list. Egypt isn't.

Maybe the best way we can help the Egyptian people is by trying to modify their government, by bribing them to cooperate, a process sometimes called foreign aid.

The trouble is, to those on the bottom, it doesn't look like we're helping them, it looks like we're supporting the crooked regime.

And we are. Change is glacially slow, and the more we spend to try and get some reform, the tighter the nets are drawn, the more the people suffer and the more power the top man consolidates to himself.

And the US Dollars keep flowing in.

Rand Paul has a plan that drastically cuts this bribery. And we should. But maybe we should make sure we are completely self sustaining and isolated first, like we were in Washington's day.

I found this chart that in some ways asks more questions than it answers. Did you know ONE THIRD of all foreign aid goes to Egypt and Israel?

And we have no real idea how much we are spending in total.

Damn.

So back to the original question: What do we now do in Egypt?

The military is now in charge; we'll have to see if that is temporary, until the next election, or if this is just step one in a military coup. Elections in September. Free and Fair? Who wins?

And then what? What if the Free and Fair election votes in another Muslim theocracy? Then how do support the Egyptian people? Like we did the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein? Like the Iranians under the Ayatollah? Like the North Koreans?

It all looks so easy, doesn't it?

Until you start looking at the possible options, and the most likely results.

And no matter what happens, we're affected. The region is oil rich- damn the bad luck- Egypt is next to (and has a peace treaty with) our strongest ally in the area, Israel. What happens if the new, freely and fairly elected Egyptian government reneges on the treaty?

We are already fighting wars on two fronts in the area; are we ready for a third?

More importantly; are we ready for the consequences of our actions/inactions?

I wish I had more faith in the Democrats to handle this crisis. As is, I think were doomed.

Same Ole, Same Ole

I found this the other day; apparently raising the debt limit will be easier than cutting the budget to make income match outgo.

Easier on whom?

Apparently It's easier for Congress to spend money than not.

Or, are they just trying to ease us into the concept that things haven't really changed?

Me? I think its the first step on the road to a short-lived Republican leadership.

You Just Have to Give Credit Where Credit is Due

I found this Thursday through Instapundit.

Barack Obama helped elect 255 Democrats to the House in 2008. This year, he helped elect 240 Republicans to the House.

Now that’s bipartisanship.

So when the Republican Central Committee starts to tell you how wunderful they are, remember who really caused this historic turn-around.

Yeah, I Did

Started flying the new flag this morning. The Young'un helped me run it up the pole and then insisted we say the Pledge of Allegance.

And we did.

Gotta start these things right, don't ya know.

Just Call Me a Prognosticator

I wrote this as a post 6 years ago, during the Bush- Kerry election cycle, as a response to a post at the old Atlantic Monthly site.

I didn’t keep a copy of the post I was responding to, but my guess is it was a Democrat who was pulling the holier-than-thou attitude and claiming that it was only the Republicans slinging mud, probably through the Swiftboaters. Even with that context, some of this won’t make sense, and I have tried to edit out the worst of it, but because I build on some of those points, I have had to leave a few in.

That being said, the following predicts the Tea Party activity we are seeing this year, which I why I thinks its worthy of posting again.

You beat a good tattoo, as long as it's not your ox getting gored. Step out of the box and count the mud balls the Dems and their unindicted co-conspirators are throwing.

Give and take, send and receive. Only a mindless (hell, I'll use it) Kool-aid drinker, from either side, thinks his noble cause is the blameless receiver of unwarranted mud and guano.

Face it, neither side wants us to KNOW the issues, much less debate them. They'll spend the next two months spouting talking points, spewing and defending mud, saying nothing and doing less.

We'll play here, and other sites, and in the letters to the editor, and come November one side will lose, one side will win, we'll lose another right or two, and the whole stinkin' mess will start again in four years.

We have two options- play along and do our best to keep Big Brother from controlling our lives down to vegetable we have for supper, enjoy the charade every four years and keep our heads above water, or give in, go smoke dope in a corner and become one of the clueless masses who are "undecided" until they step into a voting booth and pull a lever for name they think they recognize.

I'll keep fighting, and I'll keep losing, as long as the Republicrat party exists, and I'll keep hoping one day the rest of this country pulls it's collective head out of it's collective sports induced fog long enough to help.

The smoke screens over Bush's attendance at guard drills, or Kerry's back up for his medals is just to distract us from the fact that everyday government takes over more and more of the economy, mostly through regulation (for our own good, don't you know), but also through Jobs. According to the latest statistics one person in four works for the government at some level.

Stalin never had it so good.

But don't mind me- go back to the bickering- But if nothing changes in 2005, wake me up and let me know, will ya?

And things didn't change much in 2005, did they?

Polls lead me to believe things will change a little in 2011 though. Will they? Or have we been snookered again?