Saturday, December 10, 2011


There has been a lot of talk in both the media and the republican establishment about Mitt Romney being the only truly electable GOP candidate.  It is common opinion amongst the pundits that Romney is the best person to go up against President Obama and win and polling seems to support this theory.  The problem is, many conservative voters just aren't buying what they are selling.  His inability to garner more than twenty-five percent support, spun in the press as consistent front-runner status, was more about the other seventy-five percent looking for someone else.  He ran in 2008; we know who he is and what he's done and we see some major problems with his candidacy.  The pundits are happy to write it off as tea partiers being too stupid to know what's good for them, but when you look at the facts, their spin just doesn't add up.

As a little reminder, these are the same group of people who sold us Sen. John McCain as the only reasonable, electable, moderate candidate, blah, blah, blah.  The problem isn't that the Tea Party is too conservative.  The problem is that the country has been dragged so far to the left by the rise of Obama, Pelosi and their radical progressive ilk that anything not progressive or borderline socialist seems excessively conservative by comparison.  Let's not forget, too, that Romney's electability is a bit of a myth in that the man has run for senate, governor and president in the past with only one resulting win, his single term of office as Governor of Massachusetts.  If being 1-3 is a winning record, then my Eagles aren't doing nearly as bad as I thought!
That aside, there are four main reasons why Tea Party conservatives tend to want anyone but Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee:

1) Romneycare.  This is a no brainer, and the biggest hurdle he faces.  Romneycare knocks out one of the biggest political bones of contention - Obamacare - thus neutralizing that line of attack.  Mitt can talk about the difference between state mandates and federal mandates until he's blue in the face, but for many in the electorate, a mandate is a mandate.  If he felt able to mandate once before, who's to say he won't mandate again?  After all, even Obama himself on the campaign trail in 2008 reassured Americans that he would not sign any bill that had an individual mandate.

2) Job Growth.  I won't call it 'job creation' because, as we all know, government doesn't create private sector jobs, it only creates the environment for job creation.  Anyhoo.  Romney's record on job growth in his years as Governor of Massachussetts is pretty dismal.  Forty-seventh out of fifty isn't very good, no matter how you slice it.  In addition, the state's unemployment ranking went from twenty-ninth to seventeenth after three years of Romney's stewardship.  Considering jobs are second only to the economy at large for voters, this record can hardly be seen as a recommendation.

3) Bain Capital.  Obama and his DNC operatives have been working overtime on ginning up some good old-fashioned class warfare, and a Romney candidacy  might be at the heart of it.  This picture sure doesn't help.  It will be easy for Obama and democrats to tie Romney in with the Wall Street crowd.  Plus, Bain was all about buying failing companies and dismantling them - thus putting lots of people out of work.  Bain + Romney = Rethuglican Meaniehead.

4) The Cool Factor.  President Obama and Mitt Romney have something other than Obamneycare in common - their cool quotient.  And I don't mean 'cool' like James Dean Cool (sorry, Obots).  I mean cool like cold fish, unapproachable, chilly.  The reason conservatives haven't warmed up to Romney is because he's just not, well...warm.  Herman Cain made it to the top tier, even with his abysmal foreign policy chops, because he's a genuine, likeable guy.  He is also someone who sees life the way a majority of Americans do; not from a lifetime of privilege and politics, but as someone who worked his way to prosperity against the odds.  His enthusiasm for and love of country was also a winning combination for patriotic Americans tired of being told to be ashamed of their country.

The American people have been through a lot over the past ten years or so.  When Barack Obama was elected into office, we thought we were getting a charismatic, empathetic young dreamer who wanted to unite this country and move it forward into the new century.  Instead we got an arrogant man whose ideology is a throwback to 1933; someone who has spent most of his term of office attempting to gin up disagreements between various and sundry factions in America. 

Right now, most of us just want someone to tell us it's going to be okay, that the future will bring a return to the heights we once enjoyed; that we will some day be the shining city on the hill once more.  Instead we get an absentee president who is too busy vacationing, fundraising or trash talking us to spend any time on the myriad crises we face here at home - one of which is a crisis of confidence.  It is this crisis that many Americans have a hard time seeing Mitt Romney ease.  His aloofness and untouchable, Candidate Ken™-like quality is off-putting.   He will be easily depicted as an elite, upper crust persona, reinforcing the idea of a ruling class and an inability to empathize with average Americans.   Obama, on the other hand, the beneficent redistributer of all things welfare, will be painted as the saint of the working class in contrast by his lapdog press.

The complicit media is certainly doing their part to steer the masses towards Romney, and it's not hard to see why.  Ultimately, people aren't warming up to Mitt and probably won't. It will once again be an election where people hold their noses and vote for the lesser evil. The saving grace in the general election is the enormous enthusiasm gap between conservatives and liberals, but having to rely heavily on the electorate's dislike of Obama instead of enthusiasm for their candidate to turn out voters is a risky chance against an opponent who is as well funded and organized as the president. 

The 2012 election isn't going to be just about getting rid of Obama (although that alone would do an awful lot to restore confidence), it's also about what his successor will do when he/she take office.  If we have learned anything from the election of Barack Obama it is that a) we need to thoroughly vet candidates and b) we need more than 'hope and change' as a platform.  For many independents, there won't a lot of daylight between Obama and Romney.  Quite often, when you put people in a position where they must choose either the devil they know or the devil they don't, they will either vote for the status quo or abstain altogether.

There's a good chance that whoever the republicans nominate will win over President Obama.  After all, the man has ushered in an age of food stamps, persistently high unemployment, over-regulation and out-of-control spending.  Even the worst RINO would be hard pressed to match his record.  But the American people are tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.  We want someone who will give us a different choice, and Romney just doesn't seem to be the guy for that.  

Let's face it.  If Romney wins the nomination, tea partiers will vote for him.  To stay home would be to give their vote to Obama, and that is something no self-respecting tea partier will  do.  But nominating Romney will keep the GOP on the ropes in the general election by taking away all the major points of attack. It's bad strategy, pure and simple.  Independents who haven't been paying attention are an unknown quantity and the target of persuasion in a general election, so a strong case based on the issues must be made against Obama to combat the mud, smoke and mirrors sure to be on the offing from the DNC. 

There is far too much riding on the outcome of the 2012 elections to allow a Romney nomination to take such vital weapons out of the quiver.

UPDATE:  ABC's Jake Tapper has three reasons why Mitt Romney shouldn't be the conservative frontrunner.


Tuesday, December 6, 2011


My last post poked a little fun at the Occupy movement.  What can I say?  I just can't resist such low hanging fruit!  Seriously though, aside from hygiene and a disturbing number of anarchists, anti-semites and commies, at the heart of it, it could be argued that Occupy is sort of following in the Tea Party's footsteps.  Both want to end the FED, both are vehemently against bank bailouts, and both see crony capitalism as the disease that is crippling this great nation.  Unfortunately, the most glaring difference between the two groups is that the Tea Party holds government responsible, and Occupiers think government is the solution.

At least, until now.

In an interesting series of events, it came to light that the Mayor of Richmond, apparently an Occupy sympathizer, has been passing on the costs of the occupation to the taxpayer, instead of requiring the Occupiers to foot the bill as the Tea Party was.  Over the past three years, the local Tea Party chapter has held Tax Day rallies and were required to pay for permits and other fees, to the tune of about $8,500.  When the Tea Party realized the Occupiers were getting a free ride, they submitted an invoice to City Hall for reimbursement of the fees they have paid, citing fair treatment under the law.

The city's response?  Why, an audit, of course.

The Tea Party isn't going down fighting, and is preparing a lawsuit.  What is really surprising is the group that is standing with the Tea Party against the democrat-led City Hall.  This weekend Occupy Richmond voiced their solidarity (via Fox News):

“Occupy Richmond believes in absolute free speech, including the right to criticize the government without fear of retribution," Occupy Richmond said in a statement posted Thursday on its website. "Given the duplicitous and violent manner in which the city government chose to raid our peaceful occupation, it would not surprise us if the recently announced city audit of the Richmond Tea Party were retaliation for their criticism of the mayor.”

The statement also called audits "bureaucratic harassment" and "one weapon oppressive regimes use to silence dissent."

"Not only do we call on the city to drop the audit, but we also demand the immediate refund of any money paid specifically to secure the Tea Party's free speech and assembly privileges,” the Occupiers said.
Okay, so there's still a little room for improvement.  Apparently the Occupy spokesperson doesn't understand that the charges don't just disappear.  Those fees cover the cost of cleanup or damage to facilities incurred during the exercise of free speech.  The magical creatures who pick up the tab for the mess are not social justice fairies flitting from camp to camp, happy to spend their stardust for the cause.  In reality, the people who pay are fellow Americans who have been busy working, not camping, and will see their taxes go up as a result of the shenanigans in cities across the land.  Tea Party spokeswoman Colleen Owens was happy to have the moral support, but commented that they don't  want the taxpayer to foot the bill - that isn't the point of the suit:
“But this has never been about the money. It was about the principal," Owens said. "A public official should not be able to pick and choose which groups are charged."

It is a refreshing change to see the Occupiers starting to identify the government - and not just republicans, but majority party democrats, too - as a major player in the ills of the day.  It was almost heartwarming to see them actually protesting President Obama on one of his many, many, many trips to Wall Street for fundraising cash.  They grow up so fast, don't they?  Gee, perhaps if the Occupiers went home and sat down and talked to their Tea Party parents, maybe common ground could be established.  And maybe, after that, common sense

Two things to remember about these angry, disillusioned kids:  First, as Churchill said, show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.  Second, sometimes a conservative is just a liberal who was mugged by reality.  There has been a mass mugging (sometimes literally) in parks and plazas across the country over the past few months as those who were once embraced and celebrated became those who were being either co-opted or ignored (Tea Partiers can definitely empathize with that).  Some poor souls have even been traumatized by it all.

All we can hope is that the rest open their ears (and minds) and start thinking.  Many of our centers for higher education, where we send our children to learn how to think, have become indoctrination centers where they are taught what to think.  Perhaps the disillusionment of their failed experiment in commune-ism will get them thinking.  If Richmond is any indication, the worm may be turning. 

Could it be that the spring might bring a new crop of protests featuring not just Occupiers, but Tea Partiers, too, standing together as one against the banks and politicians?  Now there's a thought.

And if that doesn't work?  Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!  (or become a competitor!)


Tuesday, November 29, 2011


(sung to Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville)

Nibblin' on soy cake
Man, I am so baked
All of those hippies covered with paint
Bangin' my drum kit
I bet you hate it
The smell might make you want to faint


Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
All I know is it's not government's fault

I don't know the reason
Private property seizing
Nothin' to show but some lice and some fleas
But I got of easy
I'm not that sleazy
So at least I don't have STD's


Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
Now I think
It might be government's fault

Government fat cats
Gettin' their kickbacks
I'll wash yours if you wash mine
How can this not be
Laundering money
Robbin' the taxpayers blind


Wasted today again in my Obamaville
Lookin' for my last baggie of pot
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
Now I know it's crony government's fault
Some people say that it's just Wall Street to blame
But I know it's crony government's fault

Cross Posted at The Ripley Report


Sunday, November 6, 2011


Politico and the liberal media in general are in the process of "Palinizing" Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.  The anonymous, vague allegations of gestures and comments that might make some people  "uncomfortable" are the thinnest of gruel, but Politico has managed to squeeze not one or two, but over ninety stories out of the "scandal".   When shock jock Howard Stern opined that it's nothing more than a smear campaign, sidekick Robyn rebutted that 'that's what politicians do'.  This is par-for-the-course liberal equivocating, but the fact is that this wasn't done by a politician, it was done by an alleged news publication - an entity that, if nothing else, opens itself up to litigation when it resorts to peddling fact-less innuendo.  It seems the future of journalism is distortion and allusion - turning allegations into convictions - and the future is now.  Don't forget to stir the coals and implicate more republican candidates report on speculation over where the leak is coming from (when you already know damn well)! 

When Sarah Palin emerged on the national stage, she was immediately perceived as a threat to the democratic ideal that minorities -women included - are strictly democratic voters.  Well, the ones not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, that is.  They managed to bring her down with an overwhelming number of legal challenges to her in her capacity as governor.  These bogus suits were costly not just in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the time spent dealing with them instead of the business of the state (which she was then criticized for neglecting).  The fact that none of the suits had any merit and cost the Alaskan taxpayer millions means nothing.  The ends justified the means. 

Herman Cain poses an existential threat to the locked-in democratic votes of the black community.  There is a possibility that a choice between a black democrat and a black republican might cause some to reassess their true political leanings, rejecting the traditional knee-jerk liberalism.  This cannot be allowed to happen.

And so the palinization of Cain has begun. 

His portrayal of himself as a non-political everyman has encouraged a perception of him as having an aura of decency and strong personal ethics. He comes across as a man of integrity - plain-spoken, patriotic and honest.  These are all things sorely lacking in the current occupant of the White House.  This is NOT a comparison democratic operatives want the public making in the general election.  Since it is impossible to attempt to recast Obama as a man of integrity, patriotism and a champion of personal responsibility, it is necessary to instead bring Cain down. They simply had to drop his credibility level.

Don't forget that this was also attempted in 2008 against Senator John McCain after he won the primary.  Allegations of an affair between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman were dismissed rather quickly.  The New York Times - purveyor of the smear - ended up settling the dispute with a retraction in January of 2011 (one of several the NYT has had to print in recent months in regards to smearing conservatives).

The media meme of "where there's smoke, there's fire" is quite convenient for palinization, considering as many anonymous accusers as necessary can be ginned up to smear Cain and plant the seed of doubt about his ethics without any need for pesky things like facts or corroboration.  The best part is, instead of having to file costly lawsuits like the antics in Alaska, all that's required are barrels of ink and reams of paper.  So much cheaper!  This new trend towards "take my word for it, it's bad" journalism is quite a change from the traditional standard of verifiable sources and hard evidence.

Apparently there is no need to discover if allegations are true nowadays.  Just the fact that someone has been accused by anonymous sources is enough to convict - at least in the press.  So much for innocent until proven guilty.  Proof of a settlement is no proof at all, particularly when it comes to sexual harassment allegations.  It is routine for large companies to pay off on claims like this as it is far cheaper (even at $45,000) than investigating and defending a suit.  Ultimately, a southern man - particularly of a certain age - calling someone 'darling' is as much sexual harassment as Brigadier General Michael Walsh's calling Senator Barbara Boxer 'ma'am' was an attempt to somehow demean her.  Ridiculous.

That Cain has enjoyed a bump in not just contributions but polling, too, shows that the public just doesn't seem to be buying what Politico is selling.  The question is, has it cast at least a shadow of a doubt on his character?  The media are certainly trying to imply that, but his support seems to be as strong as ever, even after a week-long journalistic full court press.  NRA's consent for the non-disclosure agreement to be lifted should put an end to the matter once and for all.  At this point, the accuser restricted by the agreement is unwilling to go public, and none of the others seem too keen to step forward either. 

The big question is, will this palinization work? 

So far, it hasn't.  In fact, his less than stellar handling of the situation might do more to damage his prospects than the initial allegations themselves.  There is also the possiblity of another accuser stepping forward, but if her accusations are as flimsy and vague as the other three, it's more likely the public will take it with a boulder of salt, roll their eyes and move on.  Don't get me wrong - if Cain has skeletons in his closet they must, by all means, be brought to light.  It's called vetting.  If the media had done half as good a job vetting candidate Obama, we'd be talking about running against incumbent President Rodham-Clinton today - you know, the one who wasn't hanging out with Ayers, Wright, and Rezko. 

But that would be to imply that those associations carried just as much political import as those of Jane Doe numbers One, Two and Three. 

How silly.

UPDATE:  Herman Cain has suspended his campaign after a woman named Ginger White stepped forward and claimed a thirteen year affair with the candidate.  It seems that this particular bit of smoke had some fire behind it.  Cain blames the media for his sinking polls and thus the suspension of his campaign, but it would be more likely that his poor performance in interviews and debates - particularly on foreign affairs - did him in.  If allegations of affairs with presidential candidates were disqualifiers, Bill Clinton would never have been elected.  But the Lothario-in-Chief got into the Oval Office because his responses and debate performances were as strong and rock-solid as his libido.   In my opinion, Herman Cain's campaign was over with that infamous question on Libya.  It's painful to watch.  I'm with S.E. Cupp.  He just wasn't up to the task and it was only a matter of time before it became obvious.


Monday, October 17, 2011


John F. Kennedy Elementary School principal Ann Foley sent out an email to her teachers last week informing them that she was banning all fall holidays, claiming they are "insensitive".  The teachers at the Somerfield, MA school had already been instructed to tell their students that there would be no dressing in costume on Halloween, which falls on a Monday this year.  In the email she stated (via Fox News):

"When we were young we might have been able to claim ignorance of the atrocities that Christopher Columbus committed against the indigenous peoples," Kennedy School Principal Anne Foley wrote.
"We can no longer do so. For many of us and our students celebrating this particular person is an insult and a slight to the people he annihilated. On the same lines, we need to be careful around the Thanksgiving Day time as well."

Okay, get a grip. 

Look, to be honest, I always thought it was sort of silly celebrating Columbus Day, considering the man never actually set foot on American soil.  But honestly, couldn't this have been handled a little better?  Just a hint to Principal Foley - use of the word 'atrocities' in an elementary school memo about holiday parties is a bit excessive. Perhaps raising the possibility that Leif Ericsson (or Polynesia or China) was the first to discover America  might have been a better, less explosive angle.  As for parents going to the school superintendent to get the ban lifted, they are probably in for a long slog:

Superintendant Tony Pierantozzi told The Herald that Halloween is “problematic” because of connections to witchcraft.

Yes, the roots of Halloween go back to paganism, but Celtic pagans were not witches.  For them, Samhain (also known as the Winter Solstice) was a mystical night.  It was the Celtic New Year's Eve - the end of the harvest, the end of the year.  The work was done - crops harvested, herds culled, land fallow, flora and fauna easing into winter sleep.  They believed that on that night, the wall between this world and the next came down and the souls of the dead roamed the earth.  The Celts would leave offerings and say prayers for those lost over the preceding year and indulge in a little ancestor worship on the Solstice - a tradition adopted by the Romans when they conquered Celtic lands and, eventually, the Catholic Church, who changed the name to All Hallow's Eve.

Taking away the Halloween and Thanksgiving parties for elementary school children is just ridiculous. It's a real shame that the kids can't dress up.  It is, after all, elementary school.  My girls really looked forward to the annual Halloween parade at school, followed by a little "Monster Mash", cupcakes and juice in the classroom.  It was, if nothing else, an hour-long oasis of fun from the monotony of the daily routine.

As for Thanksgiving, perhaps Principal Foley should google the origins of the holiday.  According to (emphasis mine):

In the summer of 1621, owing to severe drought, pilgrims called for a day of fasting and prayer to please God and ask for a bountiful harvest in the coming season. God answered their prayers and it rained at the end of the day. It saved the corn crops.
It is said that Pilgrims learnt to grow corn, beans and pumpkins from the Indians, which helped all of them survive . In the autumn of 1621, they held a grand celebration where 90 people were invited including Indians. The grand feast was organized to thank god for his favors. This communal dinner is popularly known as “The first thanksgiving feast”. There is however, no evidence to prove if the dinner actually took place.

How atrocious.  The Indians saved the pilgrims and the pilgrims repaid them by sharing the bounty.  The horror. 

On a side note, am I the only one who feels a little sad for her that, instead of seeing a beautiful moment of outreach, peace and harmony between two very different peoples, she sees atrocities and insults?   It must be stressful carrying around all of that anger and hate.  Sounds like somebody needs a hug.

There will surely be a new memo circulating soon, detailing how Principal Foley is going to suck the fun out of the Winter Holidays, too (better not call it Christmas - her head might explode).  Considering there are more religions observed in this country than just Christianity and some religions celebrate a special event - such as Hanukkah - in December, if schools want to call it a Holiday Party instead of a Christmas party, that's just fine.  But let the kids have their parties, whatever PC name you pin to it! 

They're kids - they don't care about the impact of Columbus' exploitation of the indigenous population of San Salvador, the religious puritanism at the root of the Salem Witch Trials or the separation of church and state issues that some use to attack Christmas celebrations.  All they care about is that they get out of classwork, they get to eat cupcakes and maybe - just maybe - they get to play a few games and have some fun.  At Halloween, they look forward to showing off their costumes to their friends, not recruiting a coven and practicing black mass.  It's a break from the routine, a way to cut loose.  Since many schools no longer offer music or art programs, recess or gym, these parties are some of the only outlets for fun left to them during school hours. 

So Principal Foley, how about we keep the politics out of it and let the kids be kids and have some fun?


Thursday, September 22, 2011


Progressive Elizabeth Warren is in the running for Republican Scott Brown's Senate seat in Massachusetts.  There's no mushy middle ground for this lady, so it should be an interesting race.  At a recent campaign stop, Ms. Warren said this:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

First of all, companies aren't like sourdough bread, where you reserve some of the yeast for the next batch.  Business owners already "pay it forward" in many ways - by providing intern programs, scholarships or mentoring, to name a few.  Second, the "big hunk" government allows companies to keep doesn't go right in the owner's bank account.  It makes payroll, buys materials and machinery, advertising, shipping, and myriad other things.  Most small business owners don't see a profit for the first five years.  Most businesses operate with a lean 2-5% profit margin.  Every new tax, fee and license the State demands cuts into that.  People aren't in business for philanthropy, they're in it for success and money.  Profits are NOT evil -  if nothing else, without them who would be footing bills like this?

The Boston Globe actually tries to spin her comments as conservative, if you can believe it.  It's an interesting take, but what author Ben Jacobs misses is that for conservatives, a good faith 'social contract' between the factory owner and the taxpayers who pay for the infrastructure upon which he is dependent isn't about an unspecified increase in taxes (how much is fair? when is it enough?) or punishing regulation.  The factory owner fulfills his obligations by giving the homeowner whose property taxes paid for the infrastructure a silly little thing called....a job.  You know, the thing people do to earn the money to pay the property taxes to keep the road that they themselves use every day to get to work at the factory or one of the many other businesses that crop up around manufacturing centers like restaurants, shops, hotels, apartment complexes, car dealerships - need I go on?

By the way, isn't it interesting how greedy old business owners apparently don't pay any taxes at all?  At least, that's how progressives make it seem lately.  (Maybe it's because so many of the progressive cronies business owners they know don't)  So we're to believe there are no property taxes on the building housing the factory - no permits, fees or licenses needed, at the very least?  What about business taxes?  Payroll taxes?  Or don't those count?  Some go into the federal piggy bank, others to state and local.  But make no mistake, everybody gets a slice - including the workers who take their portion as paychecks, perks and bonuses.

Yes, there is a social contract between a large business and the community that supports it.  It is a symbiotic relationship that, when done right, nurtures and supports both parties.  Many businesses even participate in community outreach such as Target, who partnered with Oprah Winfrey to give my daughters' school a new library in appreciation for their dedication to promoting reading.  Just think of it as private sector voluntary redistribution of wealth from Target to the kids of Ocoee Middle School.  But when government steps in and begins punishing businesses for their success through excessive regulation and confiscatory taxation, they are not only sabotaging the businesses, but the communities with whom they are so closely tied by taking the resources that would have gone into the local community and redirecting it to Washington. 

As of now, Warren is the front runner in her race against Brown for the Senate.  It will be interesting to see how her comments are taken by the Massachusetts public.  We truly are at a crossroads with the 2012 election.  Which will we choose - a further slide into the floundering European model of high unemployment, high taxes, excessive regulation and low productivity or a return to the founding principles of smaller federal government, more power to the states and, above all, fiscal sanity.  If Warren remains the front runner, it will be clear that there really is a desire to punish the private sector and grow the public as the press has been claiming.  There was certainly no ambiguity in her statement to confuse voters about where she stands.  She has pinned her hopes on class warfare and redistributionism.  If Brown retakes the lead, well...if even uber-liberal Massachusetts gets it, there's hope for the rest of the country.

UPDATE:  Oh dear God in Heaven.  Looney old Paul Krugman is calling Warren a "financial reformer" whose "eloquent" comments have spoken truth to power.  If by "financial reform" you mean more of the same tax and spend policies that the democrats have been shoving down our throats for decades (and really put on steroids since 2007) then sure, she's a real "reformer". 


Sunday, September 11, 2011


It has been a struggle to write a post to commemmorate the tenth anniversary of September 11th.  It is still, even ten years later, such a difficult thing to come to grips with.  Watching the footage - planes flying into buildings, mushrooming clouds of orange flame and black smoke, people plunging to their deaths, the stunned, ash-covered survivors wandering through the debris after the towers came down - it's all still so sharp and painful, like a knife to the heart. 

So I've tried to focus on the silver lining, as I am wont to do.  The open wound that was Ground Zero in past years has given way to the rapidly climbing Freedom Tower, rising up towards its goal of dominating the American skyline 1,776 feet above the plaza surrounding the seemingly endless Footprint Waterfalls in Memorial Park. The memorial at the Pentagon with it's graceful commemmorative benches and their invitation for a quiet, pensive moment of reflection and the ever-growing memorial at Shanksfield are a testament to our deep desire to honor and remember.  But they are also symbols of our desire to move forward and show that we were bowed but not broken.  The American spirit will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of despair to greet the new day.  Morning in America will dawn once more.

The most important change this year, though, is that America finally got justice, and it seems to have changed the tone of the day. While it is still a sad, solemn occasion, it seems to be tempered this time; less anguished, more mellow. Perhaps it's just because ten years have passed, and time heals all wounds. But it's more likely because the focus of our national rage has been, literally, deep-sixed. We have closure. We were struck, and we struck back. The killing of Osama Bin Laden has done much to help the healing.  Does that make us bloodthirsty?  No, it makes us human.  Although we, in this most Christian of nations, prefer forgiveness to vengeance, we also recognize sometimes it is necessary to go a little Old Testament.  It's hard to imagine another event deserving of an eye-for-an-eye retributive strike (and for those who think 9/11 was an inside job, do they also believe President Obama is a murderer for killing Bin Laden who, after all, was an innocent man according to their theories?).  Bin Laden's death was a healing salve on the national wound; the final step in our recouperation.

On this tenth anniversary, there seems to be a bit of a feeling of letting go.  A real, solid sense of healing.  A new understanding that, truly, this too shall pass.  We must never forget the events of that day, or allow the issue to be clouded.  But we are learning that it is possible to be ever vigilant, that it's possible to pay homage, and yet still move on; to progress, to prosper, to thrive.  And therein lies our ultimate victory over those who sought to bring us low.  

Therein lies our power, the thing they will never understand.  When terror strikes at our hearts, it strengthens our resolve.  We will not cower like beaten dogs before a cruel master.  We are stronger than that.  We are better than that.  We are American.


Tuesday, August 30, 2011


Billionaire hedge fund guru Warren Buffett was the latest progressive recently calling for higher taxes on the rich* with an op-ed in the New York Times (somebody please send him this link).   He claims he only paid seventeen percent in taxes last year; far less than others in his own company:

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Why do they feel so compelled?  Are these "blessings" being showered upon them done out of the kindness of legislative hearts, or could there be other, more base reasons?  Could it possibly be the millions of dollars people like Buffett shower on political campaigns?  Perhaps the one-on-one exposure with certain members of government - exposure of which their own constituents (and the ones who ultimately pay the price for these dealings) can only dream?  Or maybe the odd coincidence of so many former federal employees finding themselves jobs on Wall Street or K Street with the help of crony connections?  A spotted owl is made endangered through no fault of it's own.  The same cannot be said about the 'coddled rich'.  It's called corruption, Mr. Buffett, and you are complicit.

In his op-ed, he raises good points about capital gains and other loopholes but ultimately, he isn't looking for tax reform, he's calling for tax increases

Big difference.

What we need is tax reform - removing loopholes and carve-outs and widening the tax base.  So why would he call for tax increases instead?  Well, it seems there is a little piece of information that Mr. Buffett and the NY Times forgot to mention (full disclosure is for suckers).   Apparently Mr. Buffett's company offers certain investment plans that, if taxes were to go up, would see a marked increase in business due to their sheltering natures, and thus a tidy profit for Mr. Buffett.  Who will then instruct his small army of tax attorneys and accountants - who surely couldn't be part of the reason he only paid seventeen percent - to find every loophole possible (conveniently provided by his pals in Congress after some vigorous lobbying) to keep from paying as little of the new taxes as possible. 

What a racket.

Lets not forget, too, that he gets to play the patriotic hero, swooping in to the rescue as well as giving his good buddy Obama a nice little talking point for the campaign trail.  Everybody wins!  Well, except the middle class, whose 'millionaires and billionaires' in the $200,000 tax bracket take one on the chin.

But wait, there's more!

Not only will Buffett profit quite tidily by the increase in business, but it turns out Omaha's favorite son's business has had a bit of a problem paying it's taxes.  It seems that Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett's influential investment firm, hasn't paid it's taxes in almost a decade - since 2002, to be exact. 

Which begs the question: Why, exactly, he is demanding taxes be raised because of 'shared sacrifice', when he isn't even paying what he owes now?

But wait, there's more!

Last week, President Obama made a little phone call to his dear friend Buffett, giving him a heads up on the situation with the floundering  Bank of America.  Buffett had a bathtub epiphany and decided to invest $5 billion (the article is really wonky but highly enlightening)  in the company. Except he really didn't.  Technically, the warrants BofA offered him equals about half the amount he invested - $2.45 billion:

So Buffett is really only injecting $2.55 billion of new capital into Bank of America and receiving $300 million per year in interest (6% * $5 billion). If you divide $300 million by $2.55 billion, you get an effective interest rate on Buffett’s investment of 11.8%. That’s pretty expensive for a bank that claims it doesn’t need any new capital!

Guess what else he got out of the deal?  A nifty little tax break.  It doesn't take an oracle to see why he jumped all over this deal.  Did I mention Buffett is throwing a big fundraiser for Obama at the end of September?  Apparently the party favors will be back scratchers.

The only problem for Buffett is that it is beginning to seem like he is using his reputation of having a nose for deals to promote the Obama agenda and people are starting to question whether his famous instincts haven't been dulled by ideology.  The cash infusion into BofA was supposed to foster confidence.  Instead, there are grumbles about how much trouble the bank is really in

With our paychecks shrinking and the cost of goods rising, it's getting harder and harder to pay the bills and put dinner on the table.  Getting lectured by the billionaire buddy of the Spender-in-Chief about "shared sacrifice" as his political connections help him make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits while simultaneously evading taxes is rather hard to swallow.   

*  "Rich"  being 'millionaires' and 'billionaires' making a staggering $200,000 and up.  Also known as making enough to be taxed but not enough to be able to afford the accountants and lawyers to get out of the taxes, like real millionaires and billionaires.  Bye-bye small business and middle class!


Thursday, August 25, 2011


There has been a lot of argument this week over the First Family's current vacation on Martha's Vineyard.  Liberals argue that all presidents take vacations, they need vacations, and how dare anyone begrudge him a vacation! (and besides, the eeeevil Bush took, like, twice as many!!!1!)  Many conservative pundits have agreed with this argument, and for good reason.  Presidents never really take vacations.  Their staff travel with them everywhere (thus incurring a goodly chunk of the expense) and they are constantly being briefed - even on the golf course.  It is a ridiculously stressful job and no matter who is in the White House, a little time away from the official residence is understandable.

(On a side note: it doesn't really resonate, though, when he promises a new jobs plan...but we have to wait until he comes back from vacation to unveil it.  What?  Are you kidding? Granted, the August recess is rather long, but this isn't a tv show where there have to be cliffhangers to keep people tuned in.  It's real life and we're dealing with 9.1% unemployment here)

But let's put this in perspective, shall we? 

Yes,  George W. Bush spent a good deal of time of vacation - certainly more than President Obama at this point in his presidency (although the claims of only 26 days in Obama's three years in office is incorrect - that number was for his first year alone).  It is important to note that he went to either Camp David or his ranch in Texas for his vacations.  It should also be noted that several of those trips to the ranch were diplomatic or otherwise official business, not just pure pleasure.  An invitation to the ranch was a coveted thing back in the day, even for heads of state.  But even then, his vacation numbers are pretty high, and he got duly thwacked for it in the press. 

The thing is, aside from the travel expense of Air Force One and all that entails (can someone explain to me why the Obamas had to take two separate planes, four hours apart, for this trip instead of flying together?), Bush's vacations were relatively cheap for the taxpayers, as he and his staff were ensconced on his ranch.  This meant no buying up of entire floors of hotels, no room service, no inconvenience for other vacationers.  For the Bushes, the problem was the amount of time spent 'on vacation', not the expense of it.  Comparing the two is apples and oranges, but every liberal you discuss this issue with will bring up ad nauseum how many days Bush spent on vacation to keep from talking about the costs involved.  It doesn't matter what the true issue is.  They know which arguments they can win, and those are the arguments they are sticking with.

The First Lady is not immune from criticism either on this issue.  This Daily Mail article skewers Michelle Obama's expensive vacation tastes, so that naturally brings up the question of former First Lady Laura Bush's vacation habits in contrast.  Unfortunately for Mrs. Obama, she doesn't compare quite as favorably as she'd no doubt like.  It turns out that Laura Bush took a girls-only trip every year of her husband's presidency.   But whereas First Lady Michelle Obama's idea of a getaway with friends involves glitzy, paparazzi infested five-star resorts in Spain, Mrs. Bush preferred to quietly meet with old friends and go...camping

It's not the fact that the Obama's are vacationing that rankles - quite frankly many conservatives see their being away from DC for a few weeks as a welcome respite, if nothing else - it's where they are doing it, and with whom.  The Vineyard screams old money and privilege and in this economy, where many, many people are not only not taking vacations, but have no jobs from which to vacate, it really hits a sour note.

Expensive, extravagant vacations do not send out an "I feel your pain" vibe, especially when the public is on the hook for a large portion of the cost.  If the President or his staff were at all concerned with optics, they would have had the First Family vacation at Camp David.  It offers a lot for a young, active family - horseback riding, basketball, bowling, tennis, swimming, hiking, skeet shooting, even golf - with all the comforts of a top-notch resort and the added bonus of the appropriate optics for a man presiding over two (three? four?) wars and a down economy.  There is ample space for staff and Secret Service, it's secure and, most importantly, it's already paid for.

Camp David has been a favorite of Presidents since it was converted into a presidential retreat by FDR in 1942.  In times of war and peace alike, presidents vacationed there, cushioned in the lap of secure luxury.   True, Reagan loved nothing more than to vacation in exclusive, expensive Santa Barbara, but when he did, he was staying at his own ranch.  JFK frequently vacationed at expansive family homes in the elite stomping grounds of not just Martha's Vineyard, but posh Palm Beach Florida as well.  But President Obama does not have a family spread at the Vineyard, and while people are understanding about going home for vacation (even if home is a wealthy 'compound' or, say, Hawai'i), he has no roots there, no reason for the expense aside from the fact that they simply want to vacation at the Vineyard.  If they had decided to scrap their plans for the Vineyard this year and vacationed instead at Camp David citing sympathy for the suffering of their fellow Americans, there would probably have been an awful lot less grumbling and they might have even managed to turn it into a PR coup. 

Unfortunately, our president and his lady - chic, cool, hip young urbanites that they are - require more public digs, and damn the optics.  It's hard to imagine the level of headache this is for the Secret Service.  It's easy, however, to imagine the level of cost this incurs, and it's also easy to imagine who is picking up the bulk of the tab.   

The problem for the president is that, in his quest for reelection, he is trying to persuade the American people that he, too, is a simple man of the people - that he feels their pain and is sharing their sacrifice.  It's hard to paint someone who is hobnobbing with the elite in the poster town for wealth and privilege as an 'everyman' when the real everyman is taking a staycation (code for a week on the sofa with Netflix) and thanking their lucky stars that they have a job.  For now, at least.

Which is a concern the president might be more sympathetic with next summer.


Sunday, August 7, 2011


My husband sent me this (thanks, Joe!), and I just had to post it.  It is a short film by Justin Folk called "The Spending is Nuts".  It's a charming story about a nation of squirrels gone awry.  This film is so good, you might even want to show it to your kids (via ebaums world):

Looks like it's up to us to give those squirrels a happy ending in 2012!


Tuesday, August 2, 2011


The best way to defang a verbal attack is to own the label being applied.  The past few weeks have shown that the newest label for Tea Partiers is "terrorist".  Perhaps it's because the accusing liberals are struck with fear every time they realize the Tea Partiers really were elected with a mandate, refuse to back down and actually gain strength by standing strong against politics as usual.  Perhaps it's just political hackery at it's most base.  But when even the Vice President is using the smear (a charge he has since denied), you know it's gone mainstream.   Go figure - the tea party movement is all about defusing the debt bomb progressives from both parties have spent decades building, but they are the terrorists.  Huh. 

So I have a suggestion. For all you tea partiers who are offended by the slur (as was I at first), rethink your offense. Let's take it and make it work for us. They want to call us terrorists?  Well, okay.  Let's take a look at the movement first, and what motivated it on it's current...well, for want of a better word, jihad.  It really has its roots in the Bush administration, specifically those who voted out republicans in 2006 due to their RINO tendency to spend like a debutant with daddy's credit card.  The grumbling grew in the summer of 2008 when the TARP scheme was hatched and ushered in the age of Obama.  The movement really exploded in 2009 in the run-up to the passage of the failed nearly trillion-dollar "stimulus" bill and has established itself as a fiscal conservative David battling the Goliath of tax and spend Washington.  They dealt the beast quite a blow last November and gained some power as a result.  The victims of the Tea Party onslaught were strewn across both sides of the aisle then; the only common thread being their profligate, politics-as-usual ways. 

It might help to swallow the bitter pill of the terrorist label to know that you are, actually, in excellent company

The newly minted "Debt Terrorists" should release their manifesto:

Be warned, all you big spenders on Capitol Hill, your days are numbered. The agenda is clear. There will be no stopping until these demands are met:

1) Cut spending on a deep, meaningful, long term level

2) Cap spending levels by tying them to GDP

3) Balanced Budget Amendment

4) Reform Social Security (a good place to start is means testing)

5) Reform Medicare (means test here, too)

6) Repeal of the economy killing ObamaCare legislation

7) Rein in the out of control EPA and NLRB

8) Revamp tax code - lower it, flatten it out and get rid of the loopholes

If you do not give in to these demands, you will be replaced with someone who will in the next election.  If you think we're not as good as our word, consider the sixty-three who didn't come back in 2010.  We mean business.

Please note "create jobs" is not on the list. Why?  Because government doesn't create jobs it only creates the conditions to create jobs, that's why. But if the things on that list are done, jobs will follow.

If that is what the left calls "terrorism" these days, then terrorists we are. And if part of the jihad is having to stomp on Harry, Barry and Nancy's toes to get them to open their mouths and take the medicine We the People voted for last year, well so be it. 

The debt jihad has begun.


Friday, July 29, 2011


The democrats' keening over the debt ceiling debate has reached such a fever pitch that the sound is rapidly reaching dog-whistle decibels.  It's quite amazing, really. 

First was President Obama's warning to seniors that if he doesn't get the plan he wants, Gramma doesn't get her check (baseless fear mongering, at best).  Ah, the Chicago way.  As Capone said, you can get much father with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word alone.  (so whatever happened to that "lockbox", if there's no money for checks, Mr. President?) 

Then came allegations that republicans are hoping for a default, which they can then somehow blame on President Obama (I'm not really clear on how that happens considering how well he polls against republicans on this issue but, like most things liberal, it requires a certain amount of blind faith, so just go with it).  Unfortunately, there are Tea Party members who don't want to raise the ceiling because they think either it is possible to avert surpassing the ceiling with spending cuts alone or that there won't be a default even if we pass the deadline.  Both of these notions are wishful thinking.  Period.  Something must be done, and it must be something that can pass BOTH houses of Congress, including the democratic majority in the Senate.  House Tea Partiers need to hold their noses and pass the Boehner bill and put it firmly in Harry Reid's court.  Once it passes the House, it's up to Reid to either table it or vote it down, and then he can deal with the fallout.  If, by some miracle it lands on Obama's desk, keep in mind that although the spending cuts are much smaller than hoped for, the tax increases Obama demanded aren't there at all and the ceiling increase is just as low as the cuts are; that's a win.  This bill will buy Congress six more months to debate real solutions, hopefully including entitlement reform and some seriously meaty cuts. 

Attempts have been made to play the race card in the debt wars, too - surprise!  But that's not the only fun we've been having with our calmer, gentler, less reactionary members on the left side of the aisle.  The Boehner plan, with its limited increase, would require another ceiling hike over the holidays, so of course the democrats have jumped on that one, too, claiming republicans hate Christmas or something stupid like that.  Speaking of gross exaggerations, check out these charts, which rebut the liberal argument that this debt crisis lies solely at the feet of the eeeevil Bush.  Just look at those numbers - nauseating, isn't it? 

Of course, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (or Debbie Downer, as I prefer) deserves a paragraph of her own for her unhinged, grossly false accusations.  How false?  Even liberal media are taking her to task on her lies.  From her accusations of Republicans hating women, seniors, and God only knows who else, to her allegations that republicans want to "literally drag us back to Jim Crow" (I'm not sure she knows what 'literally' means) or "throw us to the wolves", she's a real piece of work.  In fact, her rhetoric is so unhinged that, even as DNC chief, she isn't getting the kind of media play she was just a few short weeks ago.  My hometown newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel (hardly a conservative rag - we call it the "Slantinel"), even called her an embarrassment to her party.  Ouch!  The one thing I will say in favor of Wasserman-Shultz is that she was willing to do what no other democrat would - take ownership of the economy in the name of President Obama and the democrats.  Good on ya, Debbie.  (unfortunately, she thinks that's a good thing, because she thinks the economy is 'turning around'.  It seems high office does not necessarily denote high IQ)

But the pièce de résistance in this tour de force of hysteria comes from the one and only Queen Nan.  Ms Pelosi is sounding a bit, well.....unhinged (via Gretawire):

“What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget,” she said. “We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”

Good gracious.  Somebody needs a Xanax, stat!  Obviously clear heads are not prevailing if our Penelope Pitstop of the Hill is running around, arms flailing, shouting "Hey-elp!  Hey-elp!"  Sorry, Nanny P., Chugga-Boom and the Anthill Gang aren't members of Congress and they won't be riding to our rescue (although it does seem like Dick Dastardly has taken up residence in the White House and his good buddy Mutley is currently running the Senate).

It really seems all the democrats have to offer is demagoguery and derision.  Well okay then, guys - fair enough.  If you insist, the republican bills stink on ice and should never see the light of day.  Happy now?  Okay then, so WHERE'S YOUR PLAN????!

Quite frankly, put up or shut up.  Or better yet, both.


Monday, July 4, 2011


Happy 235th birthday, America!

Harvard University published a report last week on a study regarding the politics of the Fourth of July.  The results aren't very startling, really.  It starts off by confirming that republicans tend to be more patriotic than democrats.  This shouldn't be a revelation to anyone - after all, democrats are the party that vowed, just two short years ago, to fundamentally transform America.  We won't even get into the apology tour some on the left felt was required to atone for America's first world superpower status and overall general awesomeness.  The point is, if you love something, you love it for what it is, where it came from and where it's going.  You don't dismantle it to build something else in it's place. 

The study went on to show that children who are, shall we say, 'exposed' to Independence Day celebrations and parades have a higher chance of growing up into patriotic Americans, and even *gasp* republicans (via the Huffington Post):

According to their research, attending one rain-free July 4 celebration before the age of 18 increases the likelihood that children will identify as Republican by two percent and increases the likelihood that they will vote for a Republican candidate by the time they turn 40 by four percent. It also increases the likelihood that young attendees will vote in elections by 0.9 percent and boosts the chances that they'll make political campaign contributions by three percent, the study claims.
But wait, there's more:

The study finds no evidence that attending July 4 celebrations results in an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat.

Move over, Christmas - when do you think the 'War on Independence Day' will begin?

This study is no surprise.  It is nearly impossible to hear the story of our founding, the men and ideas that joined together to create something bigger than themselves - something truly great - and not fall in love with this country.  

The sorry state of our schools is a frequent topic of discussion on this blog.  A recent study that shows our children are aggregiously underserved when it comes to American History and civics education in our public schools.  Whatever the reason for the deficit, the Harvard study shows us that we have a way to alleviate it on a grassroots level.  The underlying point of the study, at least to me, isn't the creation of republicans, it's the creation of future patriotic citizens, whatever their political stripe.  ].

So take your kids to a parade today.  Pack a picnic and find a good place to watch fireworks.  And while you're waiting for the festivities to begin, talk to your kids about the meaning of the day.  It isn't just about BBQ and sparklers, it's about the birth of a nation.  It's about brave men of principle standing up to the status quo (and risking their lives to do so) in a quest for something better for all. Stir their patriotic souls and help them fall in love with this great country.   It will stay with them for a lifetime.

Have a happy and safe Fourth of July.

Happy 235th birthday, America!


Friday, June 24, 2011


This week in New Hampshire there was a major victory for the parents of that state.  The legislature passed a law requiring parental notice 48 hours before minors can receive abortions.  Governor John Lynch, ever the good democrat, vetoed the measure.  Belief in this bill was strong though, and the legislature overrode the veto - 266-102 in the House and 17-7 in the Senate.  In ultra-blue New Hampshire.  To borrow a phrase, unflippingbelievable!

This is a major victory for parents in the Granite State.  In 2003, there was a parental notification law on the books, but it went unenforced and was eventually repealed four years ago mainly because there was no judicial option.  The key to the current law is that girls can go before a judge sans parents and get permission in certain cases - but even this is an unacceptable option for Planned Parenthood (via PPNNE Action Fund):

Under HB 329, a young woman who cannot tell a parent about her unintended pregnancy would be forced to stand in court and explain her circumstances to a judge. This intimidating court process could delay medical care and put young women’s health at risk.

What do you think the odds are that there will be an up-tick in girls who "fear violence or retaliation at home" and are seeking judicial waivers for parent-free abortions?  On a side note, from the looks of that article in PPNNE, someone should look out for a little extra something in his reelection fund for his valiant effort...

Yet again, Planned Parenthood is hiding behind the guise of "women's health" and how it's "at risk" with these proposed regulations.  For all the talk about women's health being "at risk" from anti-abortion policies, they certainly shy away from giving those same women the real facts about the health risks of abortions (check out the differences between the two links in the 'risk'category).  The fact is, an abortion is a surgical procedure, with all of the potential risks of any other outpatient procedure, including infection and hemorrhaging.  Both of those are potentially lethal.  If my child can't get an aspirin from the school nurse for a headache without my say-so because of state guidelines, why in hell can she have a surgical procedure without my written consent? 

As for the argument that there are girls who "fear violence and retaliation in the home", those girls might very well be victims of rape or abuse at home; perhaps making them wards of the court for the purpose of abortion might be the first step in calling attention to and addressing abuses at home.  Those girls don't know where to go or who to turn to.  Enabling secret abortions may only perpetuate their misery.  The Lila Rose project illustrates how concerned PP is for underaged girls being impregnated by 30-something men.  Just keep your mouth shut and get your abortion, honey.  We don't want to know.

Well as a parent I, for one, do want to know.  It is my right as a parent, until that child turns eighteen, to know of and approve of every surgical procedure, prescription drug and doctor appointment my child requires. 

Let me see if I've got this straight.  According to democrats, my under-aged child should have sole responsiblity for making adult decisions including which surgical procedures she should undergo, but when it comes to things like, oh, insurance, mommy and daddy are the go-to people until junior hits adulthood at the tender young age of twenty-six. 



Sunday, June 5, 2011


Sarah Palin has the liberals twittering away again, much like after her "party like it's 1773" comment last year that had them in stitches - until they realized she was right.

This time, Palin made a few remarks on Paul Revere's midnight ride.  In her remarks, she mentions the tolling of bells, beating of drums and Revere warning the British that the Americans are coming.  Wait, what? our intrepid media wondered.  Warning the British the Americans are coming?  What a buffoon! 

The press chuckled at this latest illustration of their narrative that she is a blathering idiot.  They crowed gleefully about the hypocrisy of this woman on a bus tour to educate people about America not knowing the basic facts about something as well known as Revere's ride.  They even mocked her reference to the ringing of bells and beating of drums in the wake of Revere's alarm.

The thing is, she's right.  It seems Mr. Revere personally wrote an accounting (spelling original, emphasis mine) of his famous ride (via Massachussetts Historical Society):

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms

Hmmm.  Sounds like a warning to me.  And how did the militias, once alerted by Revere, warn the countryside and call their members to arms?  Why, by ringing church bells, beating drums, and firing shots in the air of course.  How else would it be done in 1775?  Twittering a flash mob?  Phone tree?

Yet again they underestimate her and make the mistake of buying their own false narrative.  Yet again they have egg on their faces.

Talk about summer fun!


Monday, May 30, 2011



Today we honor our war dead - from the Revolutionary War minutemen who helped win our freedom all the way up to our present day heroes, who help us keep it.  Freedom isn't free, and those brave men and women who gave the greatest measure of devotion to their country have paid the ultimate price for the rest of us. 

The Memorial Day tradition was begun during the Civil War, when women would take it upon themselves to decorate the graves of the fallen to honor their sacrifice.  In 1868, General John Logan, in his General Order #11, created an official day of remembrance for our Civil War dead.  With the advent of WWI and WWII, the observance was expanded to include all war dead, and the date was made official in 1971 when Congress passed the National Holiday Act, making the day a federal holiday (and a three-day weekend). 

In 1915 Moina Michaels wrote a poem about remembering those who died in war:

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

She started a tradition of wearing red poppies to commemorate the Memorial Day.  She sold poppies to friends and co-workers and donated the money to servicemen in need.   The idea was picked up by a visiting Frenchwoman who took the tradition back home to France, where it spread throughout Europe.  In fact, Europeans have managed to cling to that tradition far better than the Americans who started it. 

If you would like to make some poppies for your Memorial Day observances, here's how.

Unfortunately this country seems to have forgotten the meaning of Memorial Day.  It seems the purpose has been lost, and many Americans think it is a day to remember all of our dead, not just those lost in war.   Or, even worse, it is just the official start of summer and the first day of barbeque season.  Our reverence for those who have fallen in service to their country has dimmed over the decades, starting with our nearly forgotten Korean conflict.  Observances really started to wane during the Vietnam war era, when it was much easier for radicals to blame drafted soldiers for the violence than the democratic leadership that ramped up operations in the first place.  In fact, the day had so lost its meaning that Congress passed the "National Moment of Remembrance" resolution in 2000, which calls for all Americans to offer a moment of silence at 3pm on Memorial Day to honor our war dead.

Just last year, Arlington National Cemetery was embroiled in a scandal that illustrated how low we have fallen as a nation when it comes to proper reverence for our fallen military.  In response to that scandal, a seventeen year old patriot in Virginia, Ricky Gilleland, has taken it upon himself to create a database with photos of the graves of those killed since 9/11 at Arlington, so relatives can 'visit' the grave sites of their loved ones whenever they wish.  He started it with $200 of his own money and countless hours wandering through Lot 60 at Arlington, photographing graves and posting them on his website,   Patriots like Gilleland remind us that honoring our dead is necessary to remind us of just how precious our freedom is, and what a great price we have paid for it as a nation.

So at 3pm today, take a moment to reflect on this great country and those who died to make it so.   The roots of the Tree of Liberty have been watered with the blood of patriots, and it is our duty, not just to them but to ourselves, to ensure their sacrifice wasn't in vain and is remembered throughout the ages.


Thursday, May 19, 2011


Some residents in the path of the flooding Mississippi, facing certain loss of property, have taken matters into their own hands.  With true American ingenuity, these intrepid souls have built their own personal levees.  Be sure to visit the Daily Mail to see more pictures:

Some have even gone so far as covering the levees with plastic to ensure against erosion:

Where else but America do you see such creativity in the face of looming disaster?  Such determination in the face of overwhelming odds?  With a lot of hard work and a little luck, there's a chance these mini levees won't fail and at least a few homes will be saved.  Above all, hopefully opening the floodgates and inundating these areas will have the desired effect of saving the city centers so the loss in the rural areas wasn't in vain.

The south has been through so much this spring - wildfires in Texas, the second deadliest tornado outbreak in US history, and now the slow, relentlessly creeping onslaught of water from the mighty Mississippi.  If you can, please give to the American Red Cross.  For Florida and Georgia residents, you can add your donation to your grocery bill at your local Publix; all donations go to the Red Cross. 


Monday, May 2, 2011


Osama bin Laden is dead.

It took almost ten long years, but the deed is done.  The titular head of radical islamic terrorism is, quite literally, sleeping with the fishes. 

The wave of patriotism and joy that is sweeping over the country is a sight to behold.  Today is a day of elation, unity and national pride.  Three things that have been in short supply for far too long. 

Osama bin Laden took more than American lives that fateful day in 2001.  He took something deeper; he took our sense of infallability.  But yesterday our fine military - the best in the world - reminded us "that you can hit us, you can knock us down, but we're gonna get up and when we do, we're gonna find you and kick your ass!"  Some may lament the 'eye for an eye' attitude, but sometimes that is exactly what is called for (no small irony that he actually was shot in the eye).  Let's not forget that this slaughterer of innocents, in his final moments, used a woman as a human shield.  A heartless coward to the end. 

I had originally planned to do a post on how unusually quiet May Day was yesterday.  Europe, in particular, is usually awash in riots on May Day, but it seemed almost preternaturally quiet.  I thought it might have something to do with the residual comraderie from the royal wedding, but now, in retrospect, it's almost like it was the calm before the storm.

Of course politicians on the left are attempting to take all the credit for the get.  It is important to give President Obama high marks for making the call to send in the SEALs.  It was a risky call, and if it had gone badly, he would have taken a lot of heat, especially since the Pakistan government wasn't informed of the operation.  He took a big chance, and it paid off.  But it is also important that credit should also be given to the CIA and George W. Bush for their interrogation techniques in secret prisons that got the initial information that started us down the path to bin Laden. 

Yes, those hated programs that democrats - including our current president - went after, demonized and shut down as soon as they could are directly responsible for the actionable intelligence that led to the raid on bin Laden's compound for which they are now taking credit.  We certainly didn't get a tip-off from our "allies" in Pakistan.  No doubt there will be more investigation into their role in covering up his residency, but that is a story for another day.  No, the reality is, the Bush administration knew what needed to be done, and Obama is the beneficiary, as are we all.  The problem is, now that the head is off the hydra and we've taken away the weapon that enabled us to decapitate it in the first place, what do we do when the replacements step in?

There is a good chance al Qaeda will attempt to retaliate, so we must be ever vigilant, but for today, let's indulge in some national therapy and celebrate! 

U-S-A!  U-S-A!  U-S-A!


Friday, April 29, 2011


I am all set for the royal festivities today.  I'm taping the wedding so that I can watch it with my girls when they get home from school, but of course I'll be sneaking peeks all day.  I'm only human, after all!  I'll be serving tea, finger sandwiches and scones, and even found a recipe for devonshire cream!  I'm hoping to lure my husband in with some Guinness Stout but he is a man, after all, and I'm a realist.  Some people may think the whole affair is silly and that's just fine - if ever we needed some silliness, now is the time.  Weddings are wonderful things; royal ones even more so.  And when the bride is a 'commoner' - a regular girl who nabbed a real-life prince - why, it's practically magical.  They seem like a great match; certainly far, far better than his parents.

This wedding really has a different feel to it than other royal weddings.  It feels...genuine.  Yes, it's formal and conforms to official state tradition - he is, after all, heir to the throne, but there is also a joyousness, most notably in the bride and groom, that has been markedly absent from prior royal weddings.  Instead of keeping a stiff upper lip and doing his duty for queen and country, William found his match, and took a long time doing it, just to make sure it was right.  But, happily, 'Waity Katie' got her man. The big event at Westminster Abbey will be followed by a carriage ride and a turn on the balcony at Buckingham Palace for the traditional kiss.  A formal luncheon reception hosted by Queen Elizabeth is to follow.   In the evening, there is a dinner and dance in the offing.  The Queen and Prince Phillip will have vacated the palace and retired to Norfolk by then, so you know what that means - it's time to party!!

This particular dinner and dance party, hosted by Prince Charles and organized by the bride's sister Pippa for 300 of the bridal couple's closest friends and family, sounds like it will be a cracking good time.  After all, history is being made - there will be disco balls hanging from the ceiling of Buckingham Palace's Royal Throne Room.  Now that's a party.  For those die-hards who just won't quit 'til the sun comes up, Prince Harry is hosting a "fry-up"  at six in the morning on Saturday.  Speaking of Prince Harry, he won't be giving his best man speech until after the Queen retires.  Considering his notorious sense of humor, one can only hope that's for a reason (and that someone leaks it on youtube).

Charles and Diana's wedding was so formal and traditional.  An engineered match for dynastic reasons.  William and Kate, on the other hand, are a love match, and it shows in the youthful exuberance and hands-on approach to the event by not just the happy couple, but by their friends and family. 

With all that is going wrong in the world, all the things that weigh us down on a daily basis, setting it all aside for a few moments to embrace the pomp, circumstance and love on this happy day is a much needed escape from reality.  Luckily, this should be a heck of a wedding.  Let's not forget the bride's family are party planners.  From disco balls in throne rooms to trees in Westminster Abbey, this wedding may well prove to be the benchmark for weddings for years to come. 

And I, for one, plan on enjoying every silly second of it.  Cheers!


  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP