Pro Choice

Ever notice that the only choice the progressives/liberals/Democrats are actually in favor of, is the woman's choice whether or not to let her baby live long enough to be born?  It is their body after all.  I plan to write in the next few days about the choices being taken away from us.  Yes, I know it has been nine months since my last post.  I've been busy, ok?  Actually, I think I fell victim to the Bill Belichick strategy being employed by our government.  When every day brings a new assault on our Constitution and our rights as individuals, just as the St. Louis Rams learned in the Super Bowl, eventually the officials (conservative Americans in this case) get overwhelmed.  Like I wrote about before, I need to square my shoulders and get back in the game.   So I am going to focus for a few posts on the choices we are losing.


First of all, unless you have been living in a cave, you know that this is an election year.  From the first few days of Obama's Constitutional assault, excuse me, administration, Republicans have sworn that they would nominate a true conservative.  They would not allow the media to force another Obama-lite candidate like John McCain on the party.  We would be given a true choice.  The 2008 primaries exposed Mitt Romney as only a couple of degrees more conservative than Barack Hussein Obama.  The Tea Party Revolution of 2010 gave us hope that the Republican Party would offer choice, a real alternative to the president.  Beginning almost immediately after the 2010 Republican landslide fueled by the Tea Party, the media began pushing Romney as the only electable Republican.  All other candidates were radical, too far right.  They would never win the independent vote.  


So even with polls showing that the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative, only Romney was viewed by the media as mainstream enough to challenge the president in 2012.  Early straw polls in Iowa showed a true conservative, Michelle Bachmann having the most support in the Republican primary.  The media pulls out its favorite attack on conservatives - she's stupid.  In one speech, she mentioned Davenport, Iowa as the hometown of the American icon and symbol of self-reliance, John Wayne.  What an idiot!  John Wayne was not born in Davenport.  His family moved from Davenport shortly before his birth.  How embarrassing!   You would've thought this moron didn't even know how many states are in the United States.  Or how to pronounce corpsman.  She may even speak about asthmatics needing a breathalyzer!  How could such an intellectual lightweight match up against President Obama, who is quite possibly the most intelligent community organizer to ever walk the earth?  Only Romney is intelligent enough to have a chance!  After all, he is from Massachusetts and isn't his hair perfect?  


Republicans allowed themselves to be scared away from a truly principled conservative who actually has a voting record that supports her claims to small government Constitutional beliefs.  Next to take the lead in the pre-Iowa polls was Texas governor, Rick Perry.  Perry has a very strong record as governor of Texas.  He has even published a book detailing government reforms he would favor to return Washington D.C. to it's Constitutionally mandated size, giving more power to the states, and thus returning choice to citizens.  But the media was quick to point out that Perry signed into law a Texas bill allowing children whose parents are in the United States illegally to go to college in Texas, paying in-state tuition.  This was a huge problem for Tea Party conservatives.  In spite of Perry's defense that the bill received only two dissenting votes in the Texas House and Senate, and would be easily overridden if he had vetoed it.  He chose to accept the loss and move on, and even explained his signature that way at the time he signed the bill into law.  But the media explained to the ignorant Tea Party conservatives that Perry would soon have the country overrun and speaking Spanish only on college campuses.  Better to choose Mitt Romney, the true conservative who supports the Dream Act which is basically a national version of the Texas law.  Oh, and it would provide a fast track to full citizenship for immigrants who had chosen to ignore the law up to this point.  Well, at least if they hadn't committed any felonies while they were in the country.  Well, not all felonies, just not any violence-related felonies.  Yeah, that Romney would be a much better choice than Rick Perry.  And the whole stupid thing again.  Perry has a Texas accent, Romney's Massachusetts accent is so much more intelligent.  I mean just compare the economy of Romney's Massachusetts to Perry's Texas.  No.  Better not do that!  Just trust the media.  Perry's stupid and will open the borders to basically invite everyone to cross the Rio Grande anytime they choose.  So shortly after the Iowa caucus, Bachmann's out, followed a short time later by Perry.  


Next up for the Tea Party, successful businessman, Herman Cain.  Once he was able to pull the microphone away from Romney and Perry, he actually came away from the debates with a lot of support, especially for his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform.  Cain presented a huge problem for the liberal media.  Their fallback attack on conservatives, their lack of intelligence, might be seen as racist.  Cain is black, just like Obama!  How can the media claim the only reason Republicans oppose the president's socialist agenda is because they're hood-wearing, cross-burning racists, if they nominate a black man for president?  All right, Cain has no government experience.  He actually ran successful businesses and can not only discuss economic theory, but point to his own experience and success.  WITH NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!!  That's not even possible in Obama's world.  That would overwhelm President Obama's tenure in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate where he was noted for zero legislation and numerous "present" votes.  So the media was unable to take the intelligence, race, and experience roads to attacking Cain.  What to do?  What to do?  Conservatives stand on family values.  Let's find something in Cain's past personal life.  Soon there is a parade of women claiming either affairs or harassment.   Cain denied the charges, offered to take a lie detector test, challenged his accusers to take the same lie detector tests (they all declined).  Eventually Cain decided the strain on his family was too much and "suspended" his candidacy.  Coincidentally, all his accusers and even more mysteriously, their high dollar legal representation quickly and completely disappeared.   As an added bonus for the liberal media, they were able to once again accuse the Republicans and especially the Tea Party of racism.  How could they drop their support for Cain following a few unsubstantiated accusations?  By white women!  That's why.  Brings back all the old stereotypes of the black man that just can't control his animal urges around white women!  They were able to disguise their racism for a little while, but eventually it rose to the surface.  Better put your support behind Mitt Romney.  He's white.  If it came down to a choice between two black men, most Republicans and Tea Party members would just stay home, guaranteeing four more years of Obama.  Or at least that's what the media would have us believe.


Next in line for the conservatives?  Well, they are desperate.  True conservative candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain are gone.  Good lord, we don't want Romney!  Who is left?  Newt Gingrich!!!  Newt's smart.  He debates very well.  Even the liberal media will admit that Newt would more than hold his own against President Obama in any debate.  And without a teleprompter.  Another plus for Gingrich?  He knows the media's game and will call them out on it.   In an intellectual fight, Newt is definitely the candidate to take on the media and the president.  In debates, he turned the attack to the president and also to the media.  To the conservatives accustomed to the "above the mudslinging" style of George Bush and George W. Bush and the "reach across the aisle" style of John McCain, this aggressive style was very attractive.  Newt's only problem?  Anyone who took a close look at his record or his words would quickly realize that he is definitely not "small government."  His  favorite presidents or role models for a Gingrich presidency?  Not George Washington.   Not Abraham Lincoln.  Not Dwight Eisenhower.  Not Ronald Reagan.  Not even either of the Bushes.  Newt's choice?  How about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin D. Roosevelt!  You can't spell big government progressive without Wilson, Teddy, or FDR.  Then there's his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae connections.  And his support of cap and trade legislation.  He only appeared in the commercial sitting on a couch and agreeing with that Tea Party favorite, Nancy Pelosi.  And finally Newt's worst enemy is Newt.    He debates well and takes the fight to the media well because he is quick thinking.  Unfortunately this means that he has a creative memory, such as claiming in one interview that he supported Goldwater, showing his true conservative roots.  Small problem, he actually supported the progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  But that was long enough in the past no one could really claim otherwise, right?  Well, it would be tough to prove, except for the fact that Gingrich was actually precinct captain for Rockefeller!  Conservatives who want a choice did their own homework and learned the facts about Gingrich and, so far at least, seem to have chosen to eliminate Gingrich.  If you have any doubts about Newt's real principles, click on the links in this paragraph for videos of Gingrich stating his beliefs.  


That leaves Republicans and real conservatives a choice.  The electable, almost liberal Mitt Romney (probably more big government liberal in his policies than Democratic icon, John F. Kennedy) and Ron Paul.  Paul could be dangerous for for the liberals if the election and the presidency were all about economics and domestic policy.  Ron Paul is the candidate of choice when it comes to shrinking the government and actually enforcing the United States Constitution.  Unfortunately, he is a naive extremely dangerous candidate when it comes to foreign policy.  Although he has brought Federal Reserve policies into the public debate and actually seems to have stoked a libertarian revival among young people, he is unelectable.  Good thing for the future of the country there is one more candidate.  Rick Santorum.  The former senator from Pennsylvania has a couple of questionable actions on record - namely his support  of earmarks for his state when he served in the senate.  Overall he is head and shoulders over Romney when you compare their records.  Problem is the media is trying to convince the Republican voters that only Romney is electable.  He has too much support.  The race is over, right?  Except that Republican voters took responsibility and informed themselves without listening to the media.  Iowa voters surprised everyone and chose Santorum.  New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida did what was expected and chose Romney.  So the race is over, with only four of the fifty states (or is it 57? or 59, Mr. President?) actually voting.  Or at least that's what the media is trying to convince us.  Then last weekend, Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota, and surprisingly, Colorado.  The media quickly starts the spin that very few delegates were actually committed in those three races and Missouri's is not even a binding caucus.  So yesterday when Romney won Maine, well, now it's all over again.  Romney just proved that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  


Don't listen to the media again.  Don't let them take away our choice.  Again.  

Where's the Logic?

It's college graduation time here in Gunnison.  Seeing all the college students leaving campus last Friday, I was reminded of a story a former employee  told me about a recent grad who received a degree in philosophy.  The philosopher, Brad, ran  into an old high school buddy, Scott,  at the mall.  Brad mentioned that he had just received a degree in philosophy.  "What good is philosophy?" asked Scott.  "Philosophy is the practice of thinking rationally and using questions to come to logical conclusions," said Brad.  "For example, do you own a dog?"  "Yes, I do" answered Scott.  "So, you must live in a house, rather than an apartment," reasoned Brad.  "Yes."  "So, when did you get married?" asked Brad.  Scott was startled.  "How did you know I was married?"  Brad said, "through logic.  It is reasonable to assume that since you have a dog and a dog needs a yard, you must live in a house.  Knowing that you only have a high school education, the only way you could afford a house is with two incomes, so you must be married.  That's the kind of logical reasoning you learn in philosophy classes."  "Well, I guess college isn't worthless after all," thought Scott.

A little later, Scott runs into another friend in the mall.  "Hey Keith, I just talked to Brad, and you'll never believe what he went to college for -- philosophy!"  Keith laughs, "sounds about right, a waste of four years and a lot of money."  Scott says, "no, it's really kind of interesting.  It taught him how to reason out stuff.  For example, do you have a dog?"  "No," says Keith.  A stunned Scott shouts, "Dude, I didn't know you were gay!!!"

I think one of the biggest failings of our education system today is that students aren't taught to think critically.  If they learn at all, it is usually a regurgitation of whatever the teacher tells the class.  That carries over to adult life, where the public is easily led or misled by the media.  Last week Americans received great news.  Usama bin Laden was killed by U.S. soldiers in Pakistan.  The news was greeted with celebration and unquestioning praise for President Obama's decision to take out the terrorist.

Only the most inept administration in American history could turn this accomplishment into the series of logical questions it has become in only a week.  First, it was reported that the president personally changed the plan to take out bin Laden.  The military suggested a bombing of the compound where bin Laden was living in Pakistan.  The president insisted that the American people will want "proof that we killed bin Laden."  So he, in turn, insisted on a raid by the military to capture or kill bin Laden in order to provide the proof America would require.  When a firefight resulted from the raid, it was reported that bin Laden and other terrorists used women as shields to protect them from the Americans.  Usama was killed in the resulting battle.  His body was taken by the Americans to ship where, after a 40 minute Muslim ceremony, he was buried at sea, in compliance with Muslim traditions.  Or so the administration said.  Next, the president decided not to release pictures of bin Laden's because it would inflame Muslim sentiments around the world.

So, let's look at this critically.  First of all, ever since September 12, 2001, we have been told that Muslims were not responsible for the terrorist attacks.  The attacks were carried out by radicals that practiced a perverted version of Islam.  If that is the case, why is the Obama administration concerned first of all about providing a traditional burial for bin Laden?  He perverts Islam to justify his terrorist attacks, right?  So what true Muslim would be offended if his body was brought to the United States?  Next, the president delays the attack on bin Laden's compound from August 2010 until April 2011 in order to plan and approve a ground attack rather than a bombing to provide "proof" of bin Laden's death.  So, the soldiers follow orders and take photographs of bin Laden's body, record the ceremony and burial onboard the ship and dump the body (the only "proof" of his death) overboard in an undisclosed location.  Then the marginal proof provided by the photograph will not be made public, once again to avoid enraging Muslims around the world. Yesterday the White House announced the photographs will only be shown to selected senators in the CIA building.  Logic, anyone?

Next came reports about how bin Laden's hideout was finally located.  It seems that, while being waterboarded,  Khalid Shiek Mohammed gave up the nickname of one of bin Laden's most trusted couriers.  Several years later, another terrorist - captured in Iraq, by the way, connected the courier's nickname to his real name.  By tracking down this courier the CIA was able to find bin Laden.  This information created a dilemma for the Obama administration.  Since day one of Obama's presidency, he and his administration have claimed that the CIA never got useful information from "enhanced interrogation" techniques like waterboarding.   One of the president's first acts was to discontinue the practice.  Then came the inconvenient truth about Iraq's tie to terrorism, one of the "Bush lies" to justify invading Iraq.  Now the great news about killing the most wanted terrorist in the world has turned into a nightmare of spin for the administration. 

Finally the most illogical contradiction of all.  Despite the original stories of the firefight, cowards using their wives as human shields, and Usama bin Laden going down in a twenty minute gunbattle, the story emerged that the most feared terrorist in the world died unarmed.  In fact, the Pakistani government reported that no weapons were found at the compound.  It seems that the assault team's orders were to kill, not capture, bin Laden.  Personally, I think it was the right decision.  But if waterboarding, simulating drowning to gain information to save American lives, goes against our core principles, where is the logic in ordering the killing of an unarmed man?  How is shooting an unarmed, "confused, doddery old man" in the head in line with our core principles, as outlined by Eric Holder and Barack Obama?

I believe these questions will be hushed up, then ridiculed just like the birth certificate issue was.  Just like the president's birth in Hawaii, there is no reasonable doubt that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.  The problem is that the so-called "most transparent administration" in the nation's history refuses to be transparent again.  I think that eventually the administration will produce the photographs of bin Laden's body as proof of his death.  Just as was the case with the birth certificate, the proof will allow the president and his minions in the media to ridicule those calling for the proof as racist, uneducated, hillbilly, "deathers" who are "clinging to their guns and religion."  Probably just in time for the 2012 elections.   Now there's the logic!!!  

Change the Past Control the Future

In college, I think it was freshman literature, I read a science fiction collection called Last Defender of Camelot, by Roger Zelazny.  My favorite short story in the book was A Game of Blood and Dust.  In the story, intelligent beings play a game where they are each able to change three events in  history.  Then they let history play out and see if human life on earth continues, blood wins, or if mankind eliminates itself, dust wins.  For example, in one of the scenarios, the blood player makes John Wilkes Boothe successful in his attempt to assassinate President Lincoln (implying that originally Lincoln survived).  Anyway, the theme is that with only a few minor changes the course of events is altered.

Our politicians have learned that lesson.  But since they are unable to actually change past events, they are changing how they are reported or recorded or, most importantly, taught.  For example, what do you think of when President Grant is mentioned?  Of course, the first thing I think of is his victory as general of the Union army in the Civil War.  But I was also taught that he was a drunken butcher that only won because the Union had superior numbers and resources.  I seem to remember being taught that he graduated last in his class at West Point.  As President, his reputation was even worse.  Again, he was a drunken executive that overlooked rampant corruption that almost destroyed the recently saved Union.  Take a look at Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character for a more accurate view of the great general and President.  While in office, he would get daily visits from his former Union soldiers, coming by to thank him for leading them through the terrible war.  Sound like a drunken commander who forced his men through a meatgrinder at the unnecessary cost of thousands of lives?  Hardly.  As President, he advocated a peaceful integration of Native Americans into white man's culture.  He worried that the only alternative was "a war of extermination."  Again, not exactly what you would expect from a blood-thirsty warrior.  After leaving office, he was greatly respected by most Americans, ranking only behind Washington and Lincoln in esteem.  

So, why the change in the public's perception?  It's not like he did anything after office to change our view.  Could it possibly be that while in office, he constantly supported the position of the individual states over the federal government?  You know, like the Constitution requires.  The Constitution that he and all other Presidents take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend."  After President Theodore Roosevelt's term, only 24 years after Grant, the focus was on the powers of the federal government.  And since then, with the exception of President Reagan's two terms, the federal government has been slowly and at times, not so slowly, grabbing more and more power.  So, by the time FDR comes into office and begins to accelerate the power grab, Grant is being portrayed as a drunken fool.  

With me, almost everything has a sports, or more likely, a Dallas Cowboy analogy.  When Drew Pearson played for the Cowboys in the 1970's and early 1980's, he was a perennial All-Pro.  Along with Steve Largent, he was seen as the league's top receiver.  And with his big plays at crucial times, no receiver was more "clutch" than Drew Pearson.  Yet, he has never even made it to the final ballot of Hall of Fame voting.  Why not?  Receivers like Lynn Swann and John Stallworth, who have similiar stats but at least in Stallworth's case, nowhere near the longevity or the clutch plays are in the Hall.  Pearson was the victim of some politics by some voters.  Tackle Rayfield Wright finally overcame the same issues just a couple of years ago.  More than twenty years after he last played a game.  To see the true greatness of a player, look at how they were perceived when they actually played.  Don't let years of revision cloud your perception. 

Grant has suffered from this kind of biased revision.  On the flip side, FDR has enjoyed a complete historical makeover.  Historians and economists have quietly said for years that Roosevelt's policies did nothing to end the Great Depression, and actually may have made it worse and more lengthy.  Yet, we are taught in school that Roosevelt was one of our greatest Presidents and was so beloved by Americans that he was elected to office four times!  He was so beloved that only six years after he died, Americans ratified the 22nd Amendment, guaranteeing that no one would ever hold the office more than eight years.  Just to compare, the Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed in 1923, and today, only 87 years later, it still has not been ratified!  Sounds like Roosevelt was truly loved and respected by all.  Or at least all progressive historians.

I'll continue this tomorrow, I've gone kind of long here!

Rednecks, Global Warming and President Obama

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the global warming guys.  Not only are real scientists backpedaling faster than Deion Sanders, but now it's snowing in Texas!  My cousin posted photos on Facebook of his redneck snow skis. 

For those of you with more education than imagination, redneck snow skis consist of old cowboy boots, a couple of 1x8's, a few nails, and plenty of duct tape (he may have used bailing wire).  Now plenty of people would make the skis, take a couple of pictures, post them and get a few good laughs.  But that's the difference between posers and real rednecks.  A real redneck has to actually put his creation to use.  And my cousin is a real redneck!  Very few people go snow skiing in north Texas.  And for good reason.  It's pretty flat.  So how to use the skis?  Duh, that's why God made ATV's!

Now you know what purpose redneck kids serve?  If you are driving the ATV, who's going to ski behind it?  Your kids of course!  They heal quicker, just in case there's a design flaw.  

It looks like they had lots of fun and without any injuries.  And that's what really matters.  You're probably wondering if there are any redneck moms?  Of course there are.  Who do you think took the pictures?


I know that a snowstorm in Texas, or two, or three don't mean that global warming is not a problem.  Or that a year or two years, or fifteen years of cooling temperatures don't mean that we are in a cooling trend. They already fell for that one back in the mid-1970's.  Scientists lose a little credibility when they alternate their panic over global cooling (1968-1978) with panic over global warming (1996-now).  They finally wised up and changed the name to Climate Change.  That should cover all the bases now.

People like President Obama and former vice-president, internet creator, and global warming climate change guru, Al Gore don't understand rednecks.  They mistake a redneck's humor, creativity, and common sense for ignorance.  At least in my experience, the redneck is closer to the average U.S. citizen than our President thinks.  The redneck is your neighbor that comes to help you cut up the tree that the storm knocked over in your driveway.  Sure, any excuse to get the chainsaw out, but he also wants to help.  The redneck is the one that drags the 2.5 ton jack out of the back of his truck (yes, it's got a hemi) to help you change the flat on your Prius.  The redneck mom is the one who brings you peanut butter cookies when you move into a new neighborhood, and offers to watch your kids anytime you need.  The redneck is the one who helps you put a new commode in your bathroom so you don't have to hire a plumber.  And the redneck wife recycles it.  I doubt Al Gore replaces his own commode.  And I will guarantee that if he did, Tipper would NOT use it for a flower planter on the front lawn.

While campaigning, candidate Obama said that in tough times, some Americans "cling to their guns and their religion."  For once he was right.  Where he was wrong was in thinking that that was a bad thing.  He and many others in politics, the media, and education underestimate the "redneckedness" of the average American.  We do cling to our guns and religion,in addition to our other rights granted by our Creator, and guaranteed by our Constitution.  That is what the Tea Party movement has been about.  Hopefully some real redneck leaders will come to the front and our country will get out of the mess we are in.  In the meantime, let's go skiing.