by ·Comments Off on Barack is Sanjaya, Hillary is Omarosa, McCain is…

This title will mean nothing to those who don’t understand the world of reality TV. But, how could anyone in this election cycle not be totally familiar with the voyeur genre that has caused us to reduce every issue and every person to their basest level. Following the 2008 presidential race is a combination of watching a blow by blow of the NFL playoffs, and the final weeks of American Idol when the viewers vote on the winner.

Last season an attractive young man, Sanjaya Malakar, with little experience singing in public, somehow made it to the finals and as cute as it was when he was selected, his talent just was not cutting it, and as a result, the more gifted singers were being eliminated.

It was revealed that a rebellious segment of society, rejecting the concept of American Idol, decided to stuff the ballot box and give Sanjaya a helping hand. At first it was charming and cute, then it became annoying until a full-scale counter rebellion was mounted.

With both Obama and Clinton being Sanjayaed, switching rolls with each pulse of primary voting, it is like following the hopes of fans playing fantasy football. There are times when you place a wager on the team you hate most in the hopes that they beat the rival of your favorite team. When he is down, the crossover Sanjaya electorate decides that they should throw their votes to him to keep Hillary from gaining the lead. When he is leading as in the Texas and Ohio primaries, the opposite occurred. Even Rush Limbaugh played a part in Sanjaying the race for the specific purpose of keeping Hillary in to keep it interesting, entertaining and topical. That is pretty much what Howard Stern’s motive was when he called for his listeners to vote for Sanjaya on American Idol.

The irony in the entire manipulative maneuver is that Hillary always stands the chance of winning a primary, which causes almost every heart in America to stop beating. They immediately shift reality shows to the first “Apprentice” with the insufferable, self-absorbed, egotistical, inexperienced and over-confident Omarosa who reminds the electorate of Hillary . . . or vice versa. She was the rubbernecking fiasco that caused network TV to slow down and take a closer look. Even Donald Trump had her reappear in the final version only to verify, that yes, we were all correct in our first impression of her.

So as Hillary gives us jaw-dropping performances that go well beyond the boundary of shrill and catty, we have Barak who actually begins his speeches on a losing night with the word “change.” In the first five minutes of his speech he worked the word in at least 5352 times until it almost became a therapeutic mantra. “If I say this enough, even I will believe it, or come up with something else because I am so sick of this same speech, I could really use a change.”

It is only fair that John McCain, now the Republican candidate, be compared to some figure in reality TV since that is the theme here. It is tough since he floats between the “diplomatic” Simon Cowel and the very gracious Donald Trump who issues the edict of unemployment with the same charisma and ceremony that John McCain would.

So the United States of America, rumored to be the greatest nation in the world, and recently even making Michele Obama proud for the first time in her life, is reduced to having reality TV characters running for president. They all at least have one thing in common: They all serve in the senate, passing really bad laws that make people who really live in real America have to really deal with real reality. The rest of the country doesn’t have the luxury of fantasizing about being president after just being married to one. Or thinking because they served a couple of years in the US Senate they should actually be seriously considered as a serious, real reality candidate for the job. John McCain is a little different in that he got the senate seat himself without a presidential wife. He has served for more than 20 years, and no one . . . not even Gloria Steinhem can say a word about his service to this country. I really hope everyone is in agreement that serving as a prisoner of war, enduring torture and abuse totally redefines “reality”. But, there have been thousands of incredible men and women who have honorably served this nation, and we would all still ask them what they believe in, how they would lead, and why we should vote for them.

So here we are, sitting by our phones, ready to dial in our favorite candidate based on that last debate, that last speech, that faux pas that one liner, great quip, good comeback, or amazing nose blow. But the fingers are not dialing, other than to play games with the primaries and create a Sanjaya who will be the Omarosa and give Donald a run for his money. Other than that . . . what do we have and what does that say about us as a nation? We have asked presidents, on camera, what type of underwear they wear, while hearing under oath the color of tawdry dresses they helped stain. We see presidential candidates pandering in comedic lairs, groveling for laughs to prove they are hip and cool. We see them whack a sax, pluck a guitar and dance with Ellen to demonstrate their relevance to what . . . a shallow, self-absorbed electorate that is not trusted with a serious discussion of issues of consequence?

Well if they are one of us, then pick one of us to be president. There is no difference between them and the rest o the electorate, which says the distinction of mediocrity, is just not enough to lead this nation. Where are the people who will rise to the occasion, show maturity, humility, integrity and a foundation of standards? Are we reduced to choosing the best reality show candidate running for president and immediately begin vetting the contestants for the next show to air in 2012?

What makes this very interesting though is that because the qualifications to run for president have been so reduced to allow 95% of the population to be considered worthy candidates, John McCain is perfectly situated to bring his base back home by picking the most unlikely of VP candidates. He should look beyond the political backbench and pull in someone who has actually run a successful company and sees life from the other side of the glass. Because it has always been assumed, until now, that only infants raised by a political wet nurse, never actually having a “real” job in the only reality show that counts . . . life . . . are qualified to be president. We have never even entertained the idea that just a regular businessman could be considered as a serious candidate although the job they are seeking is the top CEO of the world. Since John McCain is considered stronger on national defense than the other two candidates, he could balance that appeal with a running mate who understands the workings of the economy, and how to run a country like a successful business where stockholders expect a profit, reject deficit spending, and like to invest in products with integrity that they can support with pride.

If Hillary wins, her running mate will be irrelevant, bland, lifeless and impotent. If Obama wins he would be wise to balance his ticket to gain a broader appeal and give the “good old boys” in his party a reason to go to the polls on Election Day.

The only way for any of these candidates to be taken seriously and win this election is for them to rise above the competition for mindless mediocrity and demonstrate that they are a real leader, operating in real time, not in the entertainment variety of reality TV.

Originally seen at townhall.com

by ·Comments Off on Pushing The Hussein Hot Button

There is an elephant in the room that everyone is trying to tiptoe around. Oddly though, it is not a large elephant, stomping around or dropping big elephant surprises . . . until now. Most people know that the past Iraqi Dictator’s name was Saddam Hussein, and ironically, Hussein is Barak Obama’s middle name. If Obama’s first name was Osama, would he be where he is politically, or would he have chosen to use his middle name instead? The fact is though, his name is Barak Hussein Obama. When he was given that name he was a few hours old, had never heard of Mohamed or Islam and was only interested in two things, eating and having his diapers changed.

That elephant was suddenly slapped on the rear by John McCain when he chastised a surrogate for using Barak’s full name, apologizing for the implications, while those inclined to possibly vote for him were reminded of why they won’t. Everyone is missing the obvious point of that entire discussion. If we as a nation are off limits as far as mentioning a possible president’s middle name because it might offend him, and others who have that name and possible evil intent against the nation, then it is a no-brainer that Obama should never be close to that office. If we are censoring ourselves, and implying that to mention his middle name is offensive, inflammatory, derogatory or degrading, then how in the world is he to stand in front of the world and answer the question, “ I Barak Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”? Will he interrupt and make the announcement that we are never allowed to mention his middle name?

But, perhaps it was Machiavellian on McCain’s part to apologize and have us discuss the outrage of chastising someone for speaking the truth, because then it serves to remind people that Barak was raised as a Muslim and spent his young years in a Muslim school. In an interview with the New York Times in 2007, Barak Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.” He recited, “with a first-class [Arabic] accent,” the opening lines of this prayer: “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah. I witness that there is no god but Allah. I witness that Muhammad is his prophet… ”

So, if Barak Hussein Obama is not embarrassed to recite the Muslim prayer in an interview with the New York Times, and identify himself that way, why should John McCain apologize for a surrogate saying his middle name? What is it about politicians and their middle names? The edict went out after Hillary became first lady that the press was commanded to use her middle name, Rodham. Then when she realized there was more currency in the Clinton name, she unceremoniously dropped her middle name and clung to Bill’s. But I am sure McCain would not chastise a surrogate if they happened to refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton. So what is it about Barak’s middle name that bothers him so much?

If it was not a strategic move on his part to subconsciously draw attention to the “discomfort” some find with Barak’s middle name, risking the exodus of those who despise political correctness at its core . . .. then what was it? Was it an honest display of the type of leader he would be, reminding us of dangerous appeasers such as Neville Chamberlain who wanted to play nice with blood thirsty dictators, only to find these guys never got the same rule book? Was he trying to show the world that he really is not a grumpy old man but does have a soft fuzzy side? One of his advisors should suggest that this was not the hill to die on for that cause. He could, instead, talk about continuing Bush’s work on fighting AIDs in Africa, or another cause that would make everyone pause, breath a sigh of relief and feel comforted by the fact that he has a heart.

 The obvious point that everyone is ignoring, and that is causing potential world leaders to flinch at even the hint of, is Barak’s past religious affiliation as it contrasts his current religious affiliation. No one . . . well, at least thoughtful people . . . are suggesting that Barak would somehow revert to his religious past, requisition prayer rugs and ring prayer bells six times a day forcing everyone to face Mecca and show their allegiance to his god. But, because he was raised as a Muslim and since converted to Christianity, we know in parts of the world that is a capital offense. Many Muslim countries in the world are very draconian in their reaction to converts within their borders, and have explicit laws that say you will either be imprisoned or killed if you convert from Islam to Christianity or any other faith. And the recent statement by Obama concerning Al Qaeda, suggesting that they were never in Iraq, could anger their base and identify him as a necessary target for destruction. He must know they have been in Iraq for years and to suggest otherwise impugns their directive, which is a very explicit, and deadly condemnation.

In a post 911 world, America cannot afford to have a president whose name is forbidden to be spoken for fear of reprisal from those who are reminded of his early religious training. And it cannot have a president who is reluctant to utter the name of a fellow candidate because he doesn’t want to appear to be drawing a negative connection between that man and a mad dictator who put people feet first through plastic shredders and gassed thousands of others. And by every rational standard of judgment, Hillary is absolutely not a viable option in any scenario.

So, as we move further and further down this road of infinite twists and turns, it really does seem that the conservative base of the electorate can play the final hand in this game of Machiavellian politics and truly determine the entire election . . . if they can only decide what their ultimate goal and candidate would be. But there is plenty of time. Overnight, millions of people could decide they have nothing to lose by writing in an agreed upon candidate. There would be no fundraisers, no TV ads, no advisors or political hacks salivating at the idea of earning big bucks to run a campaign. And it would give all those millions of people who basically had no voice in the selection of the candidate in the primary, since that decision was made by a handful of states, by crossover voters who analyzed the mathematical probabilities, the low turnouts, and the numbers needed to get the opposition candidate elected.

The majority of the American people, with the stroke of a pen, could change the course of history and totally sweep all the pundits, politicians and power hungry potentates, out the door. It could be refreshing, inspiring and could send a strong message to the world that you can’t predict what and who Americans are. And no matter how much you manipulate the primaries by registering independent, or crossing party lines to influence the other party’s outcome, the vast majority of Americans will fight back. We refuse to be reduced to polls and focus groups that are sliced and diced into an inaccurate reflection of who we really are as a nation. We have a mind, we have a soul, and we have a choice. But do we have the courage to make that choice.

As Seen at Townhall.com

by ·Comments Off on The Perfect Storm for Conservatives . . . if they don’t blow it

Conservatives have this uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and overplay every hand dealt them. They squandered the Reagan Revolution by parsing and dicing an agenda of positions unobtainable from even the most charismatic, or messianic of candidates. The color required to attain “conservative” credentials on the litmus test appears in no color wheel known to man. The acceptable candidates in this category are whittled to a pencil point that can only scribe the name of Ronald Reagan.

In the hopes that more people would have adopted his manner of principled politics, abandoning the mud fight that is covering the nation in sludge, conservatives have searched diligently for an heir apparent while consistently aborting their own. No one is pure enough, conservative enough, and principled enough to wear that mantel, yet they still hold every elected official to that standard. And, ironically, the country holds the entire Republican Party to that same standard while acknowledging that the Democrats and their party are incapable of feigning an attempt at such lofty heights.

Barney Frank is seen as the voice of all that is virtuous in sexual preference while Mark Foley is run out of town on a rail for his dalliances in alternative lifestyles. Senator Larry Craig is tarred and feathered by the giddy left while claiming the right is homophobic. Tom Delay is driven out of office by an over zealous partisan prosecutor while Congressman William Jefferson commandeers government sources to salvage his personal items, including the $90,000 in his freezer. George Allen can utter a made up word that morphs into a racial slur while the Democrat who filibustered the Civil Rights Bill gets a pass, once again. I’m not really sure what happened to Newt Gingrich, but I am sure he didn’t lie under oath or seduce an intern like Bill Clinton did. Bill has had so many sexual improprieties it would require a certified public accountant to keep track of them and somehow he is the victim and the women are the vile creatures seduced by that siren of the right wing conspiracy. His wife gets the mea culpa senate seat in a state she has never lived in, and a multi-million dollar house she didn’t spend a dime on . . . and she is the victim, not the women her husband abused.

We have watched Clarence Thomas endure a “high tech lynching,” seen Condoleezza Rice reduced to caricatures of Aunt Jamima and seen Michael Steele have Oreo cookies thrown at him for daring to leave the liberal plantation and express their own political views based on principal. Alan Keyes was all but ignored in his bid for president even though his resume, his intellect, his articulate ability and passion for a country he has always loved, shine like the sun compared to the flickering candle of the finalist in American Idol President, Barak Obama. Why have all these people been held to an impossible standard by both the left and the right? Different reasons. The left has identified all things Republican as akin to the anti-Christ . . . not that they acknowledge there is a Christ, but it is an apt analogy. And the “right”, once again, can’t seem to get its judgmental act together to recognize good people and get behind them when they are willing to put their lives on the line for the country.

So what we are seeing on the horizon is a perfect storm for a group bound by common philosophy that is at odds with all the participants in the 2008 presidential elections. If conservatives would take a moment from eating their young, look up from the bloodied carcass of fallen comrades they have abandoned in the hunt for perfection, they would see a perfect storm on the horizon.

John McCain has somehow, managed to edge out other candidates who were rejected by conservatives because they were not perfect enough . . . or they were too perfect. I can’t seem to get my arms around the fact that Mitt Romney looked too perfect, had great credentials, good administration skills but just wasn’t good enough. Giuliani was America’s Mayor, and granted, Mayor is not a resume topper, but neither is being the housewife of a man who cheats on you and finagles a senate seat in lieu of candies and flowers. Only Duncan Hunter had a perfect conservative score, yet the conservative elite sat around, wringing their hands searching for a candidate with a perfect conservative score. And even Mike Huckabee is far more conservative than John McCain, yet, he and others were rejected in favor of Hillary and Obama.

It has been twenty years since Reagan left office and the only ones who have accomplished anything have been summarily reprimanded and reproached for doing too much, not doing enough, not doing it the right way . . . whatever . . . they have passed and the movement is a dying ember fanning itself in the hopes of igniting a flame of revolution.

This is the perfect storm for such a revolution, if that once powerful group of leaders would give one final gasp of passion and unify their collective efforts to throw down a gauntlet of compromise and ultimate victory.

That gauntlet, to the heir apparent in the Republican Party, John McCain, is very simple and has only two parts. The vice presidential running mate should be vetted by the conservative wing of the party as acceptable, and he will magnanimously acknowledge and agree that if he is elected, he will serve only one term.

If conservatives can coalesce behind those terms, which would be a miracle, then there could possibly be hope for the future. If not, Hillary or Obama will win . . . depending on who gets the Democratic nomination.

And if McCain does not agree, those who feel they are once again being railroaded and forced to accept an unacceptable candidate, should not sit this election out, but vote their voice and select a write-in candidate who should have been chosen as a running mate. One very positive by-product of losing the general election is that the leadership of the Republican party convenes to elect a new leader as opposed to having one selected by the sitting president. This is the silver lining of a perfect storm.

If Hillary is the nominee, she will be a one-termer with a hostile senate and congress because it will be a known fact that Barak was cheated out of the race. She will be a pariah in the media, in the Democratic Party, and in the nation’s eye. She will retaliate with draconian measures to bring her “subjects” in line and a revolt will occur. If Barak wins, the populace will be crying “uncle” in two years as they struggle to regroup from oppressive taxes, regulations, restrictions and government’s tightening stronghold of unrestrained power. And that huge money-making machine known as “baby boomers,” will begin to slowly grind to a screeching halt as young retirees realize they would much rather spend the rest of their lives doing what they want, not what the government dictates. That young, impressionable group of new voters will be expected to pick up that slack, receiving paychecks that barely cover expenses and their altruistic nature will turn ugly with greed as they realize they have nothing to show for giving the government 50% of their hard earned money. They will expect their young president to have the answer and his response will be to tax and spend more and more. And dismiss the idea that the Clintons will recede quietly into the shadow of the party’s new “it” guy. There will be a division in the Democratic party that will make partisan politics seem like a warm memory of the good old days and it will perfectly position Republicans to win in two years, if they can figure out what they stand for.

If either Hillary or Barak wins it will be because McCain would not negotiate with his base and humbly understand that winning the election is impossible without them.

If McCain agrees to the conditions, reneges on the agreement to not run a second term he will become Bush 41, surrounded by moderates who actually thought he could win without the base, which ironically was the same reason Dole lost. So McCain can do what is best for the country or he will either Bush himself or Dole himself. And it is between him and the conservatives in the party if they have the courage to press the issue.

If they don’t, then they should not complain if they are forced to give allegiance to Hillary or Barak under penalty of whatever. And if they don’t, they forever . . . forever . . . lose a position as a serious political voice in the destiny of the country.

The perfect storm is brewing and it is up to the conservative base to recognize it and do something about it.

by ·Comments Off on Hillary is NOT the Right Woman for the Job

Hillary Clinton claims she learned how to deal with men in an all-girls school. What, did they have cut outs of male images around the campus and they all had labels on them like … belligerent, mean, rude, nasty, etc. and the girls were taught to go up and whine in front of them?

Now, if Hillary had gone to the same school that Anne Coulter had, she would have learned how to deftly dodge a cream pie aimed at her while giving a speech. Oh, did I mention the thrower was a man? Yes, on her campus, half filled with these pesky little beasts, she was forced to actually dialogue with them, present her point in a cogent way, standing toe to toe facing their gnarly arrogance. She came out unscathed from her college experience, ready to face the world of pie hurling idiot men who intersperse the F bomb between tosses. Now, that’s an education.

And Condoleezza Rice had to endure an education where nationally syndicated columnists regularly depict her as an Aunt Jimima and poor little black girl stuck on a white plantation. Oh, did I mention these are white men who are the cartoonists drawing these very degrading and racist depictions? Quiet . . . shhhhhhh . . . .what do you hear? You hear the sound of a very successful, brilliant, confident woman squishing these insignificant bugs under the shear power of her presence. What you don’t hear is her whining about it and calling racism or sexism or meanism or belligerentism.

I am still trying to get my arms around the concept that Tim Russert could be called belligerent . . . by either side. And if you think he is belligerent, and are afraid of him, don’t subject yourself to his line of questioning. Oh, wait, that must be why every single Democrat candidate for president refused to debate on a FOX News debate because, oh, boo hoo, they are going to ask weally weally tuff questions and it’s going to hurt my itty bitty feelings.

But Hillary, running in the shadow of a belligerent husband ready to rap any nave that challenges her, wants us to believe, that beyond that, she is tough enough to stare down even the cruelest dictator, as long as he doesn’t ask her direct questions, want a direct answer, expect anything substantive to occur and they all leave as really good friends.

What does Hillary think she is running for, head cheerleader? Oh those mean football players are always treating us like girls. Yeah duh, because you are one. But heh, you brought it up. You retreat to the feminine camp when things get tough and your little insecure minions circle the wagons and live vicariously through your abuse. Yep, just the kind of person we want leading the free world.

News flash Hillary . . . women today are smart enough to know a weak woman when they see one. Because they have all known weak, whiney, complaining, women in their lives who made their lives and everyone’s around them miserable. They thought they were the star, they subjugated everyone to their demands and blamed others for their own shortcomings. The problem with most of these irritating women is that they weren’t in a co-dependent relationship with someone who has the same exact character traits. Hillary’s addiction to power is no different than Bill’s addiction to sex, which in a way translates to power over women. He knows he can’t ever tame the beast he has created so he vicariously demeans women imagining he has the courage to stand up to Hillary.

And because Bill is the perfect representation of one of those Wellesley cutouts of the male chauvinist pig, she projects on all men the same despicable characteristics her husband displays, while continuing to enable him to display them.

Isn’t America sick of this pitiful drama that is being played out before us? With almost 150 million women in the country to choose from, are we really reduced to one who represents the absolute worst traits in either man or woman? She is so blinded by lust for power and hate for opposition to her getting that power, that she really can’t see her flaws. She really believes that everyone around her has a problem . . . she doesn’t.

She blames her staff for trashing Obama with racial slurs that rolled out over her own tongue. This a woman who would be very dangerous in a position of real power and all the anger and hatred she has for more than half the country would come spilling out should she get the reigns of power. And, no, the half she is angry at is not necessarily men . . . it is anyone who disagrees with her or embraces values she finds personally offensive. Yeah, that’s inclusive.

She hates all things and people who could possibly be associated with the vast right wing conspiracy, which pretty much includes all conservatives, most Republicans, most Christians, and anyone who watches Fox News.So, when you peal it back, it looks like she pretty much hates about 85% of the country, yet thinks she is equipped both emotionally and intellectually to be our leader. I don’t think so.

by ·Comments Off on We Are Ready for a Woman President . . . Just NOT Hillary

Hillary Clinton claims she learned how to deal with men in an all-girls school. What, did they have cut outs of male images around the campus and they all had labels on them like … belligerent, mean, rude, nasty, etc. and the girls were taught to go up and whine in front of them?

Now, if Hillary had gone to the same school that Anne Coulter had, she would have learned how to deftly dodge a cream pie aimed at her while giving a speech. Oh, did I mention the thrower was a man? Yes, on her campus, half filled with these pesky little beasts, she was forced to actually dialogue with them, present her point in a cogent way, standing toe to toe facing their gnarly arrogance. She came out unscathed from her college experience, ready to face the world of pie hurling idiot men who intersperse the F bomb between tosses. Now, that’s an education.

And Condoleezza Rice had to endure an education where nationally syndicated columnists regularly depict her as an Aunt Jimima and poor little black girl stuck on a white plantation. Oh, did I mention these are white men who are the cartoonists drawing these very degrading and racist depictions? Quiet . . . shhhhhhh . . . .what do you hear? You hear the sound of a very successful, brilliant, confident woman squishing these insignificant bugs under the shear power of her presence. What you don’t hear is her whining about it and calling racism or sexism or meanism or belligerentism.

I am still trying to get my arms around the concept that Tim Russert could be called belligerent . . . by either side. And if you think he is belligerent, and are afraid of him, don’t subject yourself to his line of questioning. Oh, wait, that must be why every single Democrat candidate for president refused to debate on a FOX News debate because, oh, boo hoo, they are going to ask weally weally tuff questions and it’s going to hurt my itty bitty feelings.

But Hillary, running in the shadow of a belligerent husband ready to rap any nave that challenges her, wants us to believe, that beyond that, she is tough enough to stare down even the cruelest dictator, as long as he doesn’t ask her direct questions, want a direct answer, expect anything substantive to occur and they all leave as really good friends.

What does Hillary think she is running for, head cheerleader? Oh those mean football players are always treating us like girls. Yeah duh, because you are one. But heh, you brought it up. You retreat to the feminine camp when things get tough and your little insecure minions circle the wagons and live vicariously through your abuse. Yep, just the kind of person we want leading the free world.

News flash Hillary . . . women today are smart enough to know a weak woman when they see one. Because they have all known weak, whiney, complaining, women in their lives who made their lives and everyone’s around them miserable. They thought they were the star, they subjugated everyone to their demands and blamed others for their own shortcomings. The problem with most of these irritating women is that they weren’t in a co-dependent relationship with someone who has the same exact character traits. Hillary’s addiction to power is no different than Bill’s addiction to sex, which in a way translates to power over women. He knows he can’t ever tame the beast he has created so he vicariously demeans women imagining he has the courage to stand up to Hillary.

And because Bill is the perfect representation of one of those Wellesley cutouts of the male chauvinist pig, she projects on all men the same despicable characteristics her husband displays, while continuing to enable him to display them.

Isn’t America sick of this pitiful drama that is being played out before us? With almost 150 million women in the country to choose from, are we really reduced to one who represents the absolute worst traits in either man or woman? She is so blinded by lust for power and hate for opposition to her getting that power, that she really can’t see her flaws. She really believes that everyone around her has a problem . . . she doesn’t.

She blames her staff for trashing Obama with racial slurs that rolled out over her own tongue. This a woman who would be very dangerous in a position of real power and all the anger and hatred she has for more than half the country would come spilling out should she get the reigns of power. And, no, the half she is angry at is not necessarily men . . . it is anyone who disagrees with her or embraces values she finds personally offensive. Yeah, that’s inclusive.

She hates all things and people who could possibly be associated with the vast right wing conspiracy, which pretty much includes all conservatives, most Republicans, most Christians, and anyone who watches Fox News.So, when you peal it back, it looks like she pretty much hates about 85% of the country, yet thinks she is equipped both emotionally and intellectually to be our leader. I don’t think so.

by ·Comments Off on Bill Clinton Tells Whopper at Rosa Park’s funeral

Poor Bill Clinton just can’t help himself. Does anyone find it a little ironic that he can “remember like it was yesterday,” something that was supposed to have happened 50 years ago, when he can’t even remember what he and Monica did together? But to use the platform of Rosa Parks’ funeral to lay the biggest egg of lies on the American people is beyond shameful

He claims, “I remember as if it were yesterday, that fateful day 50 years ago. I was a nine-year-old Southern white boy who rode on a segregated bus every single day of my life.” He goes on to say that it was after Parks refused to give up her seat that he and two friends decided they wouldn’t sit in the front anymore. Hmm, I wonder if his two “friends” have the same memory. There is only one, small problem with his story. Where he was raised and lived until he was in first grade, Hope, Arkansas, doesn’t have public transportation. . . And never has.

Well perhaps it was in Hot Springs, that he remembers vividly riding the bus every day of THAT life. The problem there is that Hot Springs only got public transportation 26 years ago. So what parallel universe was Bill Clinton living in where he not only rode a public bus every day of his life . . . but remembers moving to the back of it?

But there is an old saying, which is “actions speak louder than words.” If Bill Clinton was so incensed by segregation at such a young, tender age, why did he embrace a segregationist as his mentor? A man who, within a year of Bill moving to the back of an imaginary bus, signed the Southern Manifesto with 99 other Democrat segregationists to protest the Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education? If he was so abreast of the news to have the knowledge, within a day, of Rosa Park’s arrest, he certainly must have known about his mentor, Senator William Fulbright, and the Southern Manifesto condemning integration.

But since young Bill was such a compassionate lad, concerned about the fate of those his mentor determined unequal and separate, he must have been very upset in 1957 when he was 11, and Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus called out the state National Guard to keep black students from entering Central High in Little Rock. I hope we don’t have to wait for another funeral of another fallen civil rights hero to hear that story

But it is interesting to try and see how the young Bill Clinton’s mind works. His mentor is a segregationist and Democrat. The governor of his own state, that kept kids his own age from attending school, was a Democrat. All of the southern governors who either prevented integration, or closed schools to prevent integration . . .were all Democrats. But, President Eisenhower, who federalized the Arkansas National Guard to prevent Faubus from abusing his power as governor . . . was a Republican. You would think that a young impressionable lad, concerned about the plight of blacks and institutionalized Jim Crow laws, would have been astute enough to see which party represented racism, and which party represented liberation.

Why would someone who is so concerned about the issue, embrace a party that continued years of racial practices that had been a pattern long before the civil war was every fought? President Eisenhower was extremely unpopular in Arkansas when he not only Federalized the National Guard, but he replaced them with the elite 101st Airborne Division, ordering them to protect the nine black students who had chosen to go to Central High. If he had truly been supportive of what Rosa Parks did, he would have been delirious with joy at Eisenhower’s bold, courageous move to make sure his fellow Arkansasians could go to school. In fact a move like that would stir the heart of a young warrior and ignite in that future leader the desire to emulate that type of leadership and switch to his political party, since, by his own admission . . . he was now socially and politically active from the age of nine. But instead, he developed a “loathing” of the military . . . not a deep respect and love for it, nor seeing it as a force of liberation.

Instead of it being Eisenhower who Clinton would align his political star with, he instead chose to follow the leadership of Democrat governors like Marvin Griffin of Georgia who attacked Eisenhower’s actions, praised Faubus and said as long as he held office, “he would maintain segregation in the schools, and the races will not be mixed, come hell or high water.” And certainly he must remember in great detail the next year when Faubus, instead of agreeing to integrate schools just simply shut them down. Isn’t it odd that he can remember in explicit detail moving to the back of a non-existent bus, but has never mentioned the horror of the Democrat Governor literally keeping all kids from attending public schools because he hated little black children so much? Possibly the reason he does not remember it is because the southern Democratic governors who did this, opened what they referred to as, segregation academies, that were run by the state, and allowed white students only.

Interestingly, the modern Democratic Party has discovered another way to stand in the school house door and prevent young black children from getting a quality education and that is to oppose vouchers which would finally give them a chance to compete on equal footing with white children in the suburbs. Where is Bill on vouchers? Where is Bill on ending welfare and integrating every single citizen into the work force with either full employment or business ownership and opportunities? What did the first black president ever really do for blacks in America except further entrench a broken system that does nothing but destroy lives and rob dignity from American citizens who are considered less than capable, entrapped by a stigma of victimization, simply because of the color of their skin?

It is not hard to see why the poverty pimps and race-baiters still embrace the party that has historically oppressed blacks and kept them on one plantation or another. And it is not hard to see why someone who has built his entire career on one flimsy lie after another would choose a historic somber occasion to put one more stone in that crumbling wall. But what is really sad . . . . is to see all those who continue to fall for it and turn a blind to the truth, while these hustlers continue pushing their con game on the country.

Rosa Parks doesn’t need hallow lies and self-serving stories to preserve her memory. Her dignity and that of those who suffered unspeakable persecution at the hands of one political party has served to help liberate millions of people to now make choices as to which ideology they embrace, which party they join, and what candidate they support. And any Democrat today, who would condemn a black for choosing the party of Lincoln is no different than those who condemned all blacks to ride on the back of the bus, or closed school house doors to prevent them from attending. Racism and discrimination should not be tolerated . . . by anyone . . . and that is what Rosa Park’s actions said.

by ·Comments Off on Third Party Talk is Making Hillary’s Day

The discussion, by social conservatives, of supporting a third candidate if a pro-abortion presidential candidate is chosen in the Republican primary, is exciting news . . . to Hillary. That is exactly what she needs to ensure her coronation with a repeat of her husband’s failure to ever get a majority of the vote in order to be elected. If you listen carefully, that dripping sound is the left salivating at the idea.

What is baffling, and even bewildering is why do these leaders, who claim to have that much political power and muscle think they have to wait to flex that muscle. If the numbers are, as we have all seen, the majority of the American people identify themselves as conservative, even though the moniker of right-wing has been firmly attached by the left, then why don’t WE determine who the candidate will be before the party machine rolls over us.

When looking at minorities, assessing winnable numbers, all you have to do is look at the 10% of the far left that have successfully invaded and now run the Democratic Party. They do not reflect the values of the vast majority of Americans who are either apolitical, or occasionally vote every four years. And this majority is the number, when polled, who disapprove of George W. Bush, not because of the war, but because of issues that are far more personal to them. His lagging poll numbers reflect the disgust of millions of Americans at his wavering and weakness on the border issue. They have always been told that the Republicans are the party of lower taxes and less spending. They voted for Bush, hoping that he would lead the way Republicans are supposed to lead . . . less government interference, fewer regulations, greater national security, lower taxes and more individual liberty and freedom.

Let’s break down a Giuliani race, based on the myth that he is the only one who can beat Hillary. There are more people who vote specifically on the social issues like pro-life and sanctity of marriage, than vote solely for pro-choice candidates. The gay community makes up about 2% of the population, whereas the pro-life community is now over 50%, and many of them are motivated solely on that issue and will only support pro-life candidates.

If the argument for Rudy is that he is strong on national defense, and that will gain him the support of those who see him as a fighter, then why not take that issue and find another candidate who is not only strong on defense, but also embraces pro-life and pro-family positions?

And why suddenly is Rudy so electable nationwide when polls show he would not even take New York . . . and knowing that, did not run against Hillary in 2006 for the Senate. The argument is that he will motivate the moderates and undecideds and they will vote for him. Hello . . . undecided means just that. It means that two seconds before someone marks their ballot they can change their mind. You do not want them near a voting machine on Election Day. And the only thing you will find in the middle of the road besides moderates are yellow lines and dead chickens.

There are two very easy solutions to this hand-wringing problem that has inspired third-party conversations. Since the Republican party is merely a shadow of its former self, suffering from historic amnesia, being rendered not only useless but a bit of an embarrassment, there needs to be a shakeup in the halls of power. We need to see a real Paul Tillich shaking of the foundations to bring the party back to its roots of being the civil rights party that was based solely on principle and the cause of abolishing slavery. Their history has always been to champion the cause of the downtrodden and voiceless, but ironically, through the years they have been Harry Reided. All their accomplishments as far as race relations, that were hamstrung and prevented by the Democrats, are now credited to the very party who were the obstructionists. The Republicans have allowed themselves to be portrayed as racists, while the Democrats sit smugly on their stolen accolades. They stupidly go around apologizing for the Southern Strategy which is a myth created by the Democrats when their members were leaving in droves because they were embarrassed to be part of the party of Maddox, Wallace, Faubus, Byrd, Fulbright, and every other racist Democrat. As a product of the Southern Strategy, I left the Democratic Party when a leading Democrat told me that Republicans were “N”-lovers. I said I must be one and switched parties as a result.

The second solution is to select one of the declared candidates who pass the social litmus test and support them. There are some great people running, any of which would be a far better choice than Hillary Clinton. But why settle for just “electable” when we can actually get a leader in there who will, not just put their finger in the dike, but move policy that helps and protects the country.

If strong defense is an issue, and that is the ONLY reason to support Rudy, then why not pick the real deal in Duncan Hunter. He was not only an Army Ranger in Vietnam, was head of the Armed Services Committee, but his son Duncan Dwayne is on his third tour of duty. The first two were in Iraq and this time he is in Afghanistan. Duncan is the only candidate who can articulate a clear position on how to transition out of the war in Iraq.

If the issue against Rudy is that he is not pro-life, which is stimulating third candidate support, why wait until after the nomination process to choose a pro-life, third party candidate? Duncan has been pro-life forever and has never swayed or altered his view on that issue. He is fearless when it comes to fighting for what he believes in and figured out legally, how to save the cross at Mt. Soledad that the liberals wanted to tear down. He was the first one to speak out against the disparate treatment of Ramos and Campion and has been a supporter of border control, even authoring the bill that authorized the building of the border fence. This has been his issue for over 20 years.

He is from California for those who think the state of origin is an issue. As a congressman, he has always received about 80% of the vote in his San Diego district, which is predominately black and Hispanic. He does not pander to minorities, but speaks honestly and has garnered the support of many key black leaders as a result of his desire to bring them back into the Republican Party. He reminds them that it is THEIR party, created specifically for their ancestors to abolish slavery and give full and equal rights to the liberated slaves. He is doing what the RNC is too brain-dead to do, and that is to reach out to them, empower them to be involved politically and let them know that their values are our values.

Only 27% of blacks vote, and 90% of them vote for Democrats. The reason the other 73% are not involved is that they can’t stomach the policies of the Democrats, but they have been so beaten down and intimidated by the Democrats against voting for Republicans, that they abstain.

We make a fatal flaw, as conservatives when we drink the Kool-Aid of candidate viability that the Democrats so willingly serve to us. An election is not won by millions of dollars, but millions of votes. Almost every person on Duncan’s campaign is a volunteer, including his manager, his communications director, scheduler, etc., because they believe in him. Anyone can hire a consultant for $100,000, and believe me, that consultant would work for anyone. Follow the trail of consultants from one political trough to the other, and get an idea of their loyalty. But, if the issue is about money and you don’t believe that political viability exists unless you can put your hand in the side of the balance sheet, then start supporting these alternative candidates NOW. Put your money where you mouth is, stop whining, stop threatening to take your bat and your ball and go home if the game isn’t played the way you want it to be. If you want to be a player, step up to the plate and hit the ball that is thrown you and stop threatening to leave the game and start another one.

No one likes a spoiler as demonstrated by the valid accusations that if Ross Perot had not started a third party, then Hillary would be baking cookies today. And if a third party is to be formed, alternative candidate is to be selected, it should not be done two months before the primary but four years before one.

If social conservatives truly do have the choice and power to make or break a presidential race, then at least make it for the good of the country, with a candidate that the vast majority can get behind, not for the sake of making a hallow promise that will only serve to crown Hillary as our nation’s first socialist president.

by ·Comments Off on Senator Reid Insults All Americans on Senate Floor

The problem with Senator Harry Reid’s personal and embarrassingly unprofessional attack of Rush Limbaugh, on the Senate floor, accusing him of saying something he didn’t, is that it smacks of fresh hypocrisy. That New York Times fire sale ad, that Moveon.org bought, still lines America’s bird cage, and with a tilt of the head, the whole country can see those great big, obnoxious, military-hating words . . . GENERAL PETRAEUS or GENERAL BETRAY US. Oh how clever, and what exactly was the betrayal that would cause this outrageous character assassination? Why didn’t Harry condemn this? And who can forget the wannabe Commander in Chief, Hillary Clinton, basically calling this brave man a liar during a four-hour interrogation? Where Was Harry on that one?
Here is the transcript of what Rush really said. You decide if he was dishonoring the troops or singling out the actions of one man who lied about his military service in order to trash the service.

*“The morning update on Wednesday dealt with a soldier, a fake, phony soldier by the name of Jesse MacBeth who never served in Iraq; he was never an Army Ranger. He was drummed out of the military in 44 days. He had his day in court; he never got the Purple Heart as he claimed, and he described all these war atrocities. He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop ’em up. When it is demonstrated that they have been lying about things, then they just forget about it. There’s no retraction; there’s no apology; there’s no, “Uh-oh, sorry.” After doing that morning update on Wednesday, I got a phone call yesterday from somebody, we were talking about the troops, and this gentleman said something which you’ll hear here in just a second, prompting me to reply ‘yeah, the phony soldiers.’”

“Howard Dean has released a statement demanding I apologize; Jim Webb; John Kerry issued a statement, three Congress people went out on the floor of the House last night and said some things, and it’s starting to blossom now in the Drive-By Media. So this is the anatomy of a smear, and this is how it starts.”

Harry continued his rant by saying, “Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack those who are fighting and dying for him. He never served in a uniform, etc. Never served in combat. And worse, his show is being broadcast on Armed Services Radio. He owes them an apologize.”

Gee, Harry is going to have a hard time holding all those anti-military, General-grilling, Commander-in-Chief-bashing fellow senators accountable, the way he is “pretending” to with Rush. He needs to stand Hillary up in front of the class and tell her, and the country that she is not worthy to be President because she never wore the uniform and any vote to defund them can be interpreted as being anti-military. I mean, by the Rush standard that is.

Come to think of it, Barak and Edwards have not served in the military either. Does he make the same assessment about their ability to lead? They want to be president, not a radio talk show host. There is no accountability in a free country for talk show hosts to abide by political talking points or monitor their works to comply with a self-described thought police.

Does anyone, besides Dan Rather, remember that George Bush served in the National Guard and was trashed at every point because we did not have access to every single page of his entire record so Dan, et al, filled in the blanks and concluded that he was AWOL. Wow, now that’s real respect for someone who is willing to put their life on the line. Where is his apology? Oh, and where are John Kerry’s service records that never seemed to appear during the flap over a couple of missing Bush pages? And isn’t Kerry the one who threw his medals over a fence, only to magically have them reappear when he wanted to use his “military experience” to get votes? He is considered a patriot beyond reproach, while Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain, Bush . . . were all fair game when dissecting their military records.

Remember when Bush flew in on that aircraft carrier, proving once again that he attended enough classes to be able to land a jet on a postage stamp? But what was the reaction? It is hard to describe the sound of the gnashing of teeth and grinding of bones, but the left was not happy at that amazing site where young boys all over the country sat in awe, watching a president who didn’t loath the military like their mom’s president had.

Speaking of loathing the military. Wow . . . what an amazing statement for a commander in Chief not to be held accountable for. It is too bad that Harry Reid was not in the Senate when Clinton was president, otherwise his unwavering outpouring of love and devotion for the military would certainly have been exhibited in the same type of excoriation on the floor of the senate he just treated Rush to. Oh wait . . . he was in the Senate during Clinton’s term and that never came up. Imagine that . . . a private citizen can point out that an imposter is going around, posing as a soldier, trashing the war and the troops, cheating the government out of $10,000, and he is trashed on the floor of the Senate, while a draft dodging Commander in Chief who loathes the military is heralded as a hero. Very odd.

So, Harry Reid insisted that Rush issue an apology . . . for something he didn’t do, and graciously he consented. It’s sort of like seeing a baby crying, smelling a change is needed, seeing the mom is busy, and you just go ahead and clean up a mess that you didn’t make.

Rush begins his apology to the troops by saying, “So they’re going to try to deflect the criticism away from their pet organization, MoveOn.org, whose “Betray Us” ad backfired totally on them. It was a Wellstone moment for them, as this will be. But since you will never get an apology from Jack Murtha for mischaracterizing you as murderers, since you’ll never get an apology from John Kerry, since you won’t get an apology from Media Matters for America or anybody that works there, to all of you in the US Military, I want to apologize to you for them for the, again, firestorm over something that did not happen regarding your valor and your commitment to freedom and democracy last week on this program. I really regret that it happened, and I apologize to you on their behalf since they won’t.”

Yes, class trumps cowardice and blatant hypocrisy, every time.

It is amazing that these same elected officials, who are paid to serve, not be petty dictators, fall all over themselves to make sure a fellow petty dictator, Iran’s Ahmadinejad is allowed a free and open forum even though his named goal is to destroy them, Rush, you, me . . . and gee . . . every single person in our military, phony or not.

This charade of selective outrage is a precursor to their strategy to dismantle talk radio and impose restrictions on speech by reintroducing the “(un)Fairness Doctrine.” Ironically, Rush invited all of the senatorial detractors to come on his show . . . offering them a public forum to share with the rest of us, the disgust they feel about a fabricated lie. We would all love to hear from them, and try and get an understanding of why they are so outraged by this but not the statements made by Democrats who REALLY do insult the troops.

by ·Comments Off on Why Are Six Candidates Punished for the Bad Behavior of Four?

I couldn’t decide on an opening for this piece. I was tempted to start by condemning McCain, Guiliani, Romney and Thompson for not appearing at the PBS debate in Baltimore, hosted by Tavis Smiley. They helped perpetuate the mythical stereotype that Republicans don’t care about blacks and issues that most specifically affect them. Then I thought, no, that only helps to pump life into that stereotype, and I think pandering is overrated. So I will focus my irritation on those who have created the now, four headed front-running machine, presuming that they are going to be the choice of an entire Party, when many others wait in the wings for a chance to show the nation who they are, and what they stand for. And thankfully, Tavis Smiley and PBS gave them a chance inspite of the no shows.

The very ones who are exorcised over the four candidates, who they and their supportive organs have identified as the only ones who can possibly win the election, are upset when they don’t fulfill their expectations of being all that an obedient, moderate, status quo candidate should be. Suddenly not only are they the enemy of all things good and wonderful, they become a negative reflection for an entire party. It is sort of like the reparations advocates blaming all whites for slavery when hundreds of thousands gave their lives and limbs to free the slaves.

What should have been reported was that six very competent, articulate, passionate candidates DID show up and engaged in a conversation that helped destroy myths, explain foundational beliefs, and bring a nation closer to a much needed healing that has been stymied for over a century by the very party that now claims to be the civil rights party.

As a result of whining and wringing hands, those complaining about the noticeable absence of the anointed four have basically said that they aren’t interested in any other candidates. They don’t think they have a chance, and they aren’t going to give them a chance. Then why invite them to speak? Why not just preemptively decide which four you could live with, if any one of them should win, and then ignore the others? You don’t invite 10 people to a dinner party, and then disrespect the ones who come just because four rejected your invitation. Who is being rude here?

The problem that the media, the RNC, the DNC, the political pundits and spin meisters have created is that they think that just because they have settled on four of ten or eleven or twelve candidates (it is still an evolving process), then the rest of us need to embrace those four and shut up.

Hasn’t any one of these rocket scientists noticed that none of these top four . . . McCain, Guiliani, Romney or Thompson . . . has ever gotten more than about 25% rating in a poll? And McCain has been in single digits in almost every poll, totally outflanked by Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee. Why haven’t they moved up to the top tier? Who decides when that happens, and why is there a top tier anyway? Could it be that in the nationally televised debates that the questioners only focus on the top four and throw an occasional bone to the others? They have created the top four and refuse to allow another, especially a true conservative, to break into that realm. The reason is, they have all determined, even the RNC, that they can live with, and expect mediocrity, therefore ignore the possibility that a true conservative could be a viable, possible candidate.

But with that attitude, they will never see any of their handpicked candidates getting more than 25%. Oh sure, Guiliani beats Hillary in a face off, but that is not hard when she can never get above 42% approval rating in any poll. So, instead of seeing that as an opportunity to put in a candidate that could rally the conservative base, they play it safe, ride the middle, and force a moderate down the throats of their conservative base in favor of pretending to be Democrat-lite.

Then of course there is the issue of money. The pundits and advisors have a vested interest in keeping these four as visible as possible because they are being paid the big bucks. That is why fundraising dollars are so important and that drumbeat has become annoyingly predictable. Of course they need to raise the millions and millions that somehow is deemed the only answer to a political race. Somehow millions and millions of dollars is supposed to translate into millions and millions of votes. No, it just translates into millions and millions of dollars for political advisors who have created a Chabul for themselves with the hope of keeping interlopers out.

The Republican Party still hasn’t quite figured out that the reason they lost in 2006 was because the conservatives rejected their left leaning tendencies. As a result . . . actually, as a habit, the party rejects these “right wing extremists radical nut jobs”, wishing they would just leave the party forgetting that, oh my gosh, they are the party. It is hard to imagine that they would want the “left wing extremists radical nut jobs” to take over the party or to even win elections.

Let’s do a side by side . . . right-wingers, want school vouchers for inner city kids to get an opportunity at the kind of education that say, Chelsea Clinton had, while left-wingers are more concerned about the teachers unions than the kids’ education. Right-wingers think that people should be able to keep more of their hard earned money, have less government interference in their lives and basically be left alone. Left-wingers believe that you work for the government, and everything you have belongs to everyone . . . sort of a collectivist idea as opposed to a libertarian, individualist thought process. Right-wingers believe that God is not the enemy and should be allowed in daily discourse and cultural expression. Left-wingers hate God unless he is the god of oppressive dictating bullies like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Right-wingers think that free speech should apply to all individuals, including conservatives like Ann Coulter and Jim Gilchrist, while left-wingers believe that only people who believe the way they do, or are oppressive dictating bullies, should have the right to speak. And moderates sit as though they are watching the volley at a tennis match, waiting to see which side scores the most points before joining a team.

Moderates do play a very important role in politics though. They are so incredibly predictable that the manipulation levels are elevated to such a high degree during an election, that with just the right placed hint of scandal, suggestion of racism, whisper of infidelity, can bring even the most seasoned and secure candidate tumbling down. Oh, that is of course, if that candidate is a Republican. Those techniques not only do not work on Democrats, but the hint of any of the above brings their party roaring in a unified voice that their person has been vilified by the mean-spirited right-wing, thus no accountability for actions, thus success in the polls and at the polls. Interesting that nothing has been said about ALL the black candidates refusing to appear at a Congressional Black Caucus debate because Fox News was going to air it.

As blacks used to hunger for equal justice, so too Republicans hunger to be treated with the same kid gloves, righteous defiance, and incredulous anger as their Democrat counterparts. But the difference is, blacks didn’t cave into the stereotypes that were created of them and the plantations that were created for them. They fought back and rose above the abject racism and disparate treatment by petty little people. The Republican Party is so desperate to be loved, to be accepted, to be treated the same as the Democrats that they have abandoned their principles, rejected their own history, ignored their conservative candidates and squandered an amazing civil rights legacy that the Democrats would kill for.

So as the party wrings its hands and bemoans the fact that four of ten candidates did not show up at one of many, many debates that are being hosted on almost a weekly basis, they should show their anger, their disappointment by demoting their top four to the bottom tier and giving the others a chance to let America see who they are and what they stand for. The party could choose the candidates like they used to, if they had the members of the party behind them. But there is such a feeling of disgust and annoyance with the powers that be in the party, that when they look back to see who is following, they see the dust of those who left to follow their own vision for a conservative party, with principles, integrity, character and most of all . . . cajones.*

*That was thrown in to pander to the Hispanic voter. The RNC would be proud.

by ·Comments Off on Are Democrats Homophobic or Just Hypocritical?

Senator Larry Craig has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion for allegedly trying to solicit an undercover cop in an airport bathroom. Welcome to the judicial system of America. The irony is, if anyone invaded anyone’s private potty time, it was the cop thrusting his badge under Craig’s stall. Is it a crime to have Restless Leg Syndrome or to touch the bottom of a stall divider? No, the crime today is being a Republican who champions family values.

The charge of hypocrisy is practically tripping off the tongues of those stalwart supporters of Bill Clinton. They criticized anyone who would look into the private lives of public officials yet now are condemning Senator Craig for keeping his alleged private life in the closet. At least he did not act out his alleged private life in a real public place, like the oval office. It will be interesting to see what Ted Kennedy’s response will be and if he calls for Craig to step down even though he never felt a similar compunction after leaving a young woman to drown in his car, dining on eggs benedict while the fish dined on her. It will be interesting to see if Hillary, who demands that President Bush come clean, stop hiding evidence and evading the truth when she herself has developed at least 500 new ways of saying “I don’t recall,” will respond to the case.

If the issue is that you cannot serve and support one position when your actions suggest something else, then we need to take a big weed whacker to congress and start thinning it out now. How was it that a man who loathed the military could end up being the Commander in Chief? How is it that people who have never served in the military can serve on the Armed Services Committee and pass bills concerning the lives of people they disapprove of? How can someone who doesn’t own a gun sit on a committee that discusses and passes laws for citizens who do own guns? How can women vote on bills that only affect men, and men vote on bills that only affect women? What is a man doing voting on the abortion issue when it is clear he will never be in a position to have one or understand the physical, psychological and emotional ramifications of one? Does a woman who has had an abortion have the right to champion a pro-life position? Is that considered hypocritical? Are only gays allowed to debate the issue of the marriage amendment, and are they required to vote in favor of it? Are black leaders always required to support Affirmative Action, and if they don’t are they deemed hypocrites and not qualified to serve?

So what if Larry Craig is gay and thinks that same sex marriage should not be allowed? You would be surprised at how many gay leaders are against gay marriage, although not for the same reasons many conservatives are. And ironically, the reason that many gays are for it is not so they can cuddle legally with their significant other, it is to demean and destroy the institution of marriage so that there are no longer social restrictions on any form of sexual behavior

Is there a rule that says that every legislator is required to vote based on their gender, their race, their sexual proclivity, and not to do so renders them a hypocrite? When Bill Clinton claims he is for women’s rights but mauls them, exposes himself, rapes and demeans them, is he not the king of hypocrites?

So the only conclusion that we can draw from the obvious outrage by the liberal Democrats demanding that Craig step down, is that they don’t think gays should serve in the Congress. At least they don’t they don’t think Republican gays should serve since they had no issue with Barney Franks running a prostitution ring out of his house, or Gerry Studs having sex with an under-aged page. And the argument that Democrat spokesmen give is that these guys got reelected. Great, then let Larry Craig stay in office and let the voters in his state decide if HE should be reelected or not. And if they reelect him, then the people of Idaho, like the people of Massachusetts have said that congress is a big tent, or that they forgive Larry for any alleged indiscretions.

But please, drop the hypocrisy line. It just doesn’t fit here. And if liberals insist that he resign, they better be knocking on Ted Kennedy’s door, suggesting that murder is a lot worse than tapping a foot in a bathroom stall. And tell Hillary that lying under oath is a lot worse than running your hand under a stall divider. But if the claims of hypocrisy continue, it will only serve to show that the Democrats are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to equal rights for all people. By calling for Craig to resign, they are saying that no matter what your sexual preference, regardless of whether you are open about it or not, gays are not allowed and not welcome in congress and will be run out on a rail from this elite body . . . oh, unless they are Democrats. Hmmmm did someone say hypocrisy?