Tuesday, February 21, 2012

This and That

I am absolutely convinced now that there exactly no chance any of these GOP canidates will run and win the national election. It is not completely their own flaws or poor decisions, it is not their gaffes nor miscalculations that shall lead them to defeat but their breathless hounding by the national media.

The media have called this vetting. Really? I have seen proctologist exams go less indepth than the current gaggle of journalist have. Dredging up an ex spouse, finding bimbos who claim to sleep around, theology and Olde Nick, magical underwear and tainted newsletters. This is what has past for journalistic integrity during this 2012 presidential election. One need not wonder why we face a nation so utterly dysfunctional and withered.

What can I say that will give any of this a substantial point of view?

I can list the total debt of our nation - 15.5 trillion subject to vast expansion if we factor in items such as junk housing inventories and unfunded liabilities/ obligations
I can point to a job market that is being massaged to look good ( ha) at being a mere 8.3% (sob) when in reality the true figure for The complete unemployment is at 16.8 % (48 million)
The jobs that once employed these masses have vanished construction, manufacturing, services,
and the local mom and pops ...

The world governments are extraordinarily frayed, massive economic collapses hover in the distance. The social unrest is breeding like fungus in a well maintained petrey dish experiment. I would not be lieing to say wars have begun in more stable times. Sections are literally on fire now, such as the middle east ( yeah I recognize the oxymoronic hue to such a statement)

Today I heard the truest summation made in regard to what stares the population of the US in the face by Newt ( as in Newton not the amphibian) Gingrich here it is . . .

defeating Obama at the November poll is a matter of urgent national security because he is the "most dangerous president in modern American history."

How can that be ? The national media that is so diligently examining the current crop of Wanna be Leaders of the Free World, surely must have checked President Barack Obama as rigorously, right?

Um nope, not even close, when troubling indicators came to the light of day the Media and Journalist tucked their microphones and pens into their suit jackets. When comments that suggested the man had a distinctly different views of American exceptional ism and opinions that may be applauded by the spirits of Marx and Lenin.

But there is light ... Somewhere...in the world . . .a beautifully warm and brilliant light shines . . . Or so I pray

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Congressman Allen West correcting the false narrative of a bigoted Republican Party

In honor of Black History Month Florida Congressman AllenvWest set the record straight
regarding the degrading lies and allegations spread across the nation by the left. Here is the transcript

Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of Black History Month, I rise to acknowledge the Republican Party's proud and storied history of standing up for the rights of African Americans. The first black Members of Congress served during Reconstruction, and they were all Republicans. They won their seats, despite fierce threats of violence against black voters by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and were successful only as a result of the firm support they received from the Republican Party. One of these Members was Josiah T. Walls, a slave who earned his freedom through service to the Union in the Civil War. He settled in Alachua County, in our sunny State of Florida, and was repeatedly elected to Congress at-large.

In some ways, Mr. Speaker, I carry the torch of Josiah Walls. You see, in 1876, the Democrats contested his election and had him replaced midterm with one of their own. No black Republican would again be elected from Florida to this House until November 2, 2010, when the voters of that State entrusted me to be their Representative.

On my desk in my office, there is a book called "Capitol Men,'' and it is a biography of those first black Members of Congress. I stand where Josiah Walls and the other early black Republican Members of Congress once stood--Hiram Revels of Mississippi; Benjamin Turner of Alabama; Jefferson Long of Georgia; Robert DeLarge, Robert Brown Elliott, and Joseph Rainey, all of South Carolina. They were the ones who carried that first torch for my colleague, Tim Scott.

They would have stood here urging support for policies of equal opportunity for all. Mr. Speaker, I stand here this evening to recognize their legacy.

The Republican Party has always been the party of freedom. Today, we understand that our principles are best served when we act as stalwart advocates of free markets. But historically, Republicans understood that the value of every human life is diminished when any human life is made to work against its will. Free markets are characterized by the free exchange of goods and services--and by the free exchange of labor for compensation. You see, Mr. Speaker, without free people, there can be no free markets.

Where men are not free, freedom does not reign. And so the Republicans have always been the party of free men, of individual freedom. It was President Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Grand Old Party, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation and brought about the freeing of the slaves. For many, this is the beginning and the end of the Republican Party's role in advancing equal rights. But that understanding misses the myriad ways our party went on to better the lives of Black Americans and cheapens the many contributions that later generations of Republicans made to the cause of freedom.

It was, in fact, Republicans of their day who worked to pass the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th Amendments, securing for African Americans deliverance from slavery, equal protection under the law, and the right to vote.

Each of these accomplishments did its part to cement the fundamental freedoms all Americans enjoy today. None of them could have gotten off the ground without GOP support. Take the 13th amendment, for example. At Abraham Lincoln's request, the Republican National Committee Chairman Edwin Morgan made abolishing slavery an official part of the party's platform in 1864. At that year's national convention, he opened with a statement on the topic. He said: The party of which you, gentlemen, are the delegated and honored representatives, will fall far short of accomplishing its great mission unless among its other resolves it shall declare for such an amendment of the Constitution as will positively prohibit African slavery in the United States.

The 14th Amendment was no different. A little known fact about that law that granted Black Americans citizenship, with all the rights and privileges thereof, is that every vote in favor was cast by a Republican and every vote against was cast by a Democrat. In 1968, when the Democrat-controlled legislature of New Jersey voted to rescind its ratification of the 14th Amendment, it was the State's Republican Governor who vetoed that attempt.

Mr. Speaker, it was the Republican-controlled 39th Congress that established the Buffalo Soldiers, a fighting force of six regiments of Black American troops. They would soon become known for exhibiting the "courage of a cornered buffalo'' in battle while posted to the frontier. In peacetime, they gained renown for being the finest horsemen the Army had to offer. And in 1907, the 10th Cavalry Regiment of Buffalo Soldiers was sent to the United States Military Academy at West Point to teach the cadets riding skills and mounted drill.

Mr. Speaker, think about that for a second: the commanders of their day were so confident in the ability of the Buffalo Soldiers that they entrusted them with the training of the next generation of Army leaders. And it was the Republicans who made that happen.

It was the Republicans who passed the 15th Amendment, as well. For once, the story is true that not every Republican supported it. A few abstained, saying the measure did not go far enough. It was the Democrats who voted against the 15th Amendment, and when it passed anyway, it was the Democrats who resorted to the use of poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation and other pernicious practices in an effort to keep Black Americans from exercising their right to vote. This was something that my grandparents and my parents experienced growing up in south Georgia.

It was a Republican by the name of Senator Charles Sumner who got the equal rights movement on its feet. A fierce abolitionist and leader of the "Radical Republicans'' --sounds very familiar when they start talking about Tea Party Republicans--Senator Sumner wrote and shepherded the first ever civil rights bill through Congress. It was a Republican President, the great General Ulysses S. Grant, who signed it into law the same day that it passed. And that comprehensive bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, would become the blueprint for every subsequent piece of civil rights legislation to come before Congress despite the fact that it was struck down by a backward-looking court.

It was the Republicans who first called for racial justice in the Armed Forces, not only allowing Black Americans to serve their country, but welcoming them to serve their country alongside their white brothers.

It was a Republican judge named Elbert Tuttle who time and again ruled in favor of civil rights and who went on [Page: H797] to order the University of Mississippi to admit its first ever Black college student. It was a Republican Supreme Court Justice who authored the decision in Brown v. Board of Education that recognized racial segregation for what it was: a violation of the United States Constitution.

And when a school district in Arkansas refused to integrate, it was a Republican President, Dwight David Eisenhower, who sent in the 101st Airborne Division to escort the Little Rock Nine to class. However, it was a Democrat Governor in Orval Faubus, you may recall, who had tried to use his National Guardsmen to prevent them from enrolling.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans were unfazed by the many Democrats, including John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who criticized President Eisenhower's decision. Meanwhile, it was the Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the first civil rights act of the 20th century and the Republicans who managed to pass it nonetheless. The law established a Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department and authorized the Attorney General to request injunctions against anyone attempting to deny a person's right to vote. It was written at the behest of President Eisenhower after a long drought of civil rights bills under Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and President Harry Truman.

It was a Senate minority leader, Everett Dirksen, a Republican, who helped write the first Civil Rights Act of 1964, widely regarded as the most influential of them all. And in recent years, it's been the Republican Party that has fought to prevent African Americans from being trapped in a permanent underclass through dependence on government handouts.

In the 1990s, it was the Republican-controlled 104th Congress that passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Then-Democrat President Bill Clinton signed it only after reluctantly having vetoed it twice.

This reform changed the face of welfare, ensuring that recipients who were able to work would be required to seek employment. No longer would government checks be seen as an entitlement. No longer would States have a financial incentive to add as many names to their welfare rolls as possible. Finally, there was an alternative to the cycle of poverty caused by years of misguided Democrat policy. And it's been Republicans who have continued to fight for the underprivileged communities, even as we're painted as the party of the white upper class.

In 2004, another Republican-controlled Congress under the leadership of Republican President George W. Bush signed an omnibus bill that included a voucher program for school children right here in the District of Columbia. Instead of being shackled to the failed public school system, thousands of students were able to use the first Federal Government vouchers to escape high-performing private schools.

Mr. Speaker, what Republicans have long understood is that poor communities are best served when they're empowered to care for themselves. The more they come to rely on government checks, the less they learn to rely on their own ability and ingenuity.

Our party firmly believes in the safety net. We reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock. For this reason, the Republican value of minimizing government dependence is particularly beneficial to the poorest among us. Conversely, the Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today and does not promote economic freedom. Time after time, the GOP has stood strong as leaders on issues of conscience. Even when the positions we've taken have been unpopular, we've held the line and ultimately brought about liberty and justice for all. From eliminating slavery, to securing full citizenship and voting rights for African Americans, to calling for desegregation even in the most hostile bastions of the Deep South, to implementing school choice in poor communities, to helping black families break out of the cycle of welfare dependence, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been on the front lines of the fight for equal rights and individual manifest destiny since our party's founding under Lincoln.

So, too, has the party led on issues like reducing the size of government, streamlining the Federal bureaucracy, and returning power to the States. These positions didn't always garner the most popular support at the time. It's easier to convince a person that a government should be doing something for them it currently isn't than to convince a person the government shouldn't be doing something for them it currently is.

But real visionary leaders don't retreat from fights. It is said that one evening, as George Washington sat at his table after dinner, the fire behind him flared up, leading him to move his chair away so as not to end up getting burned. When someone called George Washington out, saying a general ought to be able to stand the fire, he responded that no general should ever be taking fire from behind.

That is the essence of integrity and conviction--the willingness to stand for what you believe at all times, alone if need be, without the option of retreat, no matter how tough the slog ahead may be, and to do so with the faith that eventually it is possible to transform a losing fight into a winning one.

For inspiration, we need only to look to the former slave and Republican, Frederick Douglass. Having found his way to freedom through education and hard work, he could have been forgiven for retiring from the public eye, but he didn't back down from the work still to be done. Instead, he made himself one of the most stalwart champions of not just the antislavery movement, but the women's rights movement as well. He wasn't content to lend his political capital to causes that would benefit him.

He knew what we know, that injustice anywhere is an affront to the human spirit.

To free African Americans from the bonds of slavery was only the first step for Frederick Douglass, and he would not be satisfied until he helped liberate women from the bonds of misogyny as well. In those days, Douglass could count on the Republican Party to be his ally in the fight. Today, we remain no less dedicated to the cause of freedom.

So therefore, Mr. Speaker, with a core belief in the supremacy and the sovereignty of the individual and the unconditional dignity of every human life, the Republican Party is, always has been, and forever shall be the party of equality of opportunity. Happy Black History Month.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Response to No Quarter's Larry Johnson

So long story short I got one real day off and a mess of things to get accomplished on that day but I simply could resist getting this out to respond to Larry Johnson @ No Quarter blog. They are rampant Romney fans - desperate to see Obama crushed for his sin of running over their Saint Hillary they despise Gingrich for his kneecapping Clinton. And now have targeted Santorum.
I took way too much time to write this response so I am posting it here.


 I see you have cast the gaunlet to conservatives as to why they would support Santorum . To be perfectly clear i will support whoever is the nominee . 

First I will address the negatives you have laid out, and then follow up with a big point you avoided to mention.

 1) the deadly threat of earmarks - true some of the past decades earmark projects and pork barrel spending were wasteful expenditures meant to lock in support for other projects and votes. That is the ugly way of Washington DC.  Party politics and back scratching are the way things are done from getting for Osprey helicopters ( Santorum voted Yes) to funding high speed rails between cemeteries and prisons ( tarp money to CA for that ) .  In comparison to the spending our federal government is currently engaging in, is to compare a shot glass to a beer vat.  Earmarks are in fact a duty of a congress person and representatives, to trying get tax money back to their own states to fund infrastructure projects ( not one man in the primary today is clean of the practice of petitioning for earmarks for their states  Goggle It ) That is part of their responsibility. Have there been excesses? You betcha.  But in the grand scheme of Santorums efforts are softball compared to the likes of Saint Hillary Clinton (in fiscal 2008 alone out earmarked all by 5 times the amount. )  I see that Senator Kennedy and Representative Barney Frank grand slammed earmark dollars and I can't seem to recall a peep out of an alleged Conservative Governor during his single term in office. So bang your drum people earmarks are evil and installing central planning health insurance with unconstitutional mandates on all living citizens of a state is a Ok.

 2) Job creation -  Santorum can't compete to Romney's Jobs creation can he? He certainly didn't run a venture capital business that had access to business's across the spectrum of the economy.  No - as a senator he wasn't in the business of hiring people on that level. He voted in congress and worked to achieve funding of projects ( earmarks) to bring tax money back into the state to increase hiring. He supported Tax cuts to ensure the business community had the money to invest in their business either human resources or products which produces human capital in other business's .  He opposed NAFTA that endangered his constituents work opportunities ( it did by the way). He voted  for tariffs on imported steel and consumer products coming from China based on their currency  manipulation. He has voted for labor unions in the past due to the wishes of his Constiuents and has  indicated his support for national right to work legistations if serving as President. I have little reason to doubt that considering ratings from the American Conservative Union are at 90%.

 So while he didn't create jobs so to speak he did take the available avenues of his position to spur job growth in his state. 

3) The gay marriage issue/ family values - though you did not mention it I feel it needs to be addressed. IE: goggle Santorum 
  When Rick Santorum discusses family values - he is aimed at the traditional family model Father,Mother and children. Some people who have targeted his position  like to mention a lack of sympathy to the changing metrics of American families. His main conviction is that the traditional family model offers the best chances of raising better prepared children. It offers children stronger economic parameters, better foundations in understanding healthy adult relationships and a respect for discipline.  While he understands that the modern family is shifting from two parents and single earner households to single parent/earner households he still maintains correctly it is less than optimal to raise a family in such a manner. A common model developing the past thirty years is that of extended family members acting in surrogate parenting roles, which can be a good substitute given the circumstance.

 His views on homosexuality are more faith based than an outward fear and intolerance of this group. His principled arguments regarding same sex marriage is that once breached the definition of marriage will stand multiple contests to continue extending it out past two individuals of consenting age.(slippery slope argument). Aside from that, he makes the case across the globe no civilization in past history of mankind had ever thought to grant same sex marriages before the Netherlands did in 2001.
 Of the countries that have elected to go this route (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina) all are witnessing declining birth rates and  an increase in fatherless children. One may question if being a fatherless child is a bad thing on occasion  but statistically speaking it has an adverse effect. In fatherless children you can see higher incarceration rates, education drop out rates, suicides, gender identification confusion, juvenile delinquency, and aggression in young males. 

 So in a nut shell as a conservative I can back Santorum without batting an eye.

 So perhaps maybe some folks here can explain to me, how exactly is Romney ( the newly crowned  conservative by CPAC) going pull this thing off? 

He has lost the healthcare debate before day one. And that is HUGE . . . With that one issue - you show Barrack Obama as singularly focused on achieving that one objective that he allowed the economy to tailspin for the first 18 months of his term. 

 The occupy movement was spawned and designed to eviscerate a potential top earner like Romney... The language of class warfare ( which he has foolishly embraced on occasion) is set to be drag before the mass media markets to the politically unattentive, like a famished lion eviscerates its prey. Add to this, his recorded gaffes,  to be edited & used out of context  ... I like to fire people & I don't care about the poor . . . He is already facing a swift and certain defeat. 

 His new found conservativism is strikingly slim on historical evidence. Supporting a minimum wage increase is definitely not a position on the right wing nor is it a blessing to his job growth platform. In fact while in his single term as MA governor He opposed an increase correctly noting the horrendous track record it has on job growth. His proposed tax plan is completely uninspiring and he has not shied away from a tax increase on people/ small business earning $200,000. ( sounds vaguely familiar don't it?) No flattening of the rates and no laid out tax reform of substance leaving yet more uncertainty to clog the gears of the economy. 

 He is now a staunch anti illegal/ undocumented worker hawk. & yet when he was the acting Gov of MA his position was quite different.  2005 Boston Globe interview has Romney supporting legistations that allows illegal aliens to obtain citizenship after registering waiting 6 years & then paying a fine . He called this a reasonable course of action.  That is a far cry from what he as a Canidate has said and there where no efforts in his time in the Governorship to authorize state police to arrest persons on visa/immigration violations until the last month of his term in office. 

 My thing is ... Saying one thing is merely lip service compared to what you do when you are in the position to do it. 

 For all the most dedicated Romney folks smashing every other Canidate to pieces, Tell me how Romney Vs Obama is any different from Willkie vs FDR in 1940.


Sunday, February 5, 2012

The most Important Election of Our Lifetime

To be completely honest I never bought such dramatic hyperbole. As long as I have had the opportunity to participate in the process of electing a man to the presidency I have never voted for either of the two major parties. How treacherous that must sound for my conservative brethren and likely just foolish to progressive minded readers. I dare say I myself feel a degree of uncertainty in the opinion I long held . . . The brand name political parties are a big part of the problem that has driven this nation in the past 80 years. Not because I don't firmly believe it to be true any longer, but because now I feel a pang of guilt for not having been vocal enough.

To be clear, my conservative vote here in NY is not going to do a blessed thing in a national election. The State is solidly deepest Democrat Blue, and the electorate has not gone for the Republican since 1984- Reagan's 1st. Term. I am conscious of the fact my precious vote but a splinter of driftwood in a vast ocean. Therefor I can vote with impunity That my vote should not hold much sway and I may cast about for any third party.