Earmarks are not the issue...pork is!

This earmark issue is stupid. Not sure if you're as annoyed as I am, but I've been annoyed at the GOP and the talk radio hosts since it first came up as a topic during the stimulus debate.  Mark my words: it's going to backfire. The term "earmark" as a subject came up because Obama, like the liar and truth-twister that he is, swore that there were none in the $800b stimulus bill. Since the bill was so pork-laden, Republicans and talking heads like Hannity jumped on this. Whether the porky items in the bill are literally "earmarks" or not is a stupid discussion...it's obvious that the items are not stimulating and THAT should've been the sole focus of the argument. Instead, they took the bait and started a campaign against earmarks, as if the term "earmark" means "pork", which it absolutely does not (but your average American now thinks it does), AND as if Republicans aren't just as fond of the Constitutionally-backed appropriations process as Democrats. I'm not sure if Obama intentionally trapped Republicans into this or if it was just more of his self-glorifying deceit (likely the latter), but either way Republicans are now having to back off the earmark issue which they themselves created since there are so many of their own earmarks in the $410b omnibus bill.  Talk show hosts continue to point out that there are 8000 earmarks in the bill, as if that's bad, but [duh], 40% of those are from Republicans.  Earmarks themselves aren't bad...it's the fact that they're pork-laden, but they seem not to get that.  Conservatives managed to shift the argument from pork to earmarks, and now they're going to look stupid when they didn't necessarily have to.

Oh, and by the way, if they want to trash the earmark process, I'm not necessarily saying that's not a worthwhile discussion, but it's another subject entirely.

Monkey business

You wanted consistency? You got it. Well, sort of... The Spanish Parliament passed an unprecedented resolution yesterday granting equal rights to [drumroll please.......] apes. Unfortunately, this is not a satire, and I'm completely serious. Apparently, the Spaniards believe that monkeys should be protected under the same laws as humans. I'm not even sure where to begin on this one... Let's make sure not to grant protection to unborn human children, but we'll make sure the apes are squared away. Good thinking. I'm quite sure the folks at P.I.T.A. (er, PETA) are dancing in the streets hailing themselves victorious. Woohoo, break out the champagne!



Don't laugh because this is coming...this is Socialism run amok and it's on its way across the pond. Already our not-so-Supreme Court has decided that terrorists should be granted Constitutional rights and protections under habeas corpus, so why not extend the Constitutional provisions to apes?



Next up, monkey marriage...why not?

D.C. Gun Ban: And the winner is.....

...the Constitution! Score one for our forefathers. A landmark decision was made today by the Supreme Court in favor of our Second Amendment right to bear arms in District of Columbia vs. Heller. In an age (er, month?) where our court system seems to be making more laws than interpreting them, I'm extremely happy that the U.S. Supreme Court got one right today.

Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy and Alito voted to overturn the unlawful D.C. Gun Ban...count 'em: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...it was a 5-4 vote! So, if Justice Anthony "flip-a-coin" Kennedy would have decided to swing the other way, one of the core amendments within this nation's Bill of Rights would now be defunct. Does this scare anyone else? How we have gotten to this point, I do not know, but aside from a few marginal victories such as this, it seems this slope is only getting more and more slippery.

How ironic that Alexander Hamilton actually wrote a Federalist Paper (number 84) disagreeing with the idea of creating the Bill of Rights in the first place. Why? Because he felt the Constitution should be able to stand on its own, and that it was unnecessary (read: "dangerous") to grant specific rights to the people since the government had no power to take any of them in the first place. At the time, he was more worried that the Amendments may mistakenly omit some rights of the people and therefore leave them open to restriction by a future, corrupt government (hence the inclusion of the 9th Amendment). Here's what he had to say:

"...For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

Sound familiar to anyone? I'm guessing that he's rolling in his grave today ... usurping is what our politicians seem to live for.

Anyway, enough ranting. I actually read Justice Scalia's majority opinion this evening, and it is masterful. He does a fantastic job of breaking down the 2nd Amendment phrase by phrase in order to remove any doubt of the intentions of this nation's founders. I highly recommend reading it. He also writes a fantastic closing wherein he addresses the emotional opposition to the 2nd Amendment, but reminds us all that it is not within the power of the Supreme Court to repeal explicit rights granted to the people by the Constitution.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Here, here! Well put Sir!

Chickens coming home to roost for the GOP

No, this is not another blog post about Jeremiah Wrong, er Wright, but it's ironic how applicable his famous words are to the GOP. Lately, I've been listening to conservative talk show hosts point out the recent gaffes of Barack Obama, and how he makes more and more slip-ups the more he speaks without a teleprompter. They blame his inexperience and spin McCain's "maturity" as a distinct advantage in this area. Uh, guys...has anyone noticed that even as Obama makes one gaffe after another, his lead over McCain continues to rise? (15 points at last count) What will it take to get it through your thick heads that the people don't care!


Whether or not the public should care about these Freudian mis-steps is not even a worthwhile discussion...the obvious fact is, they don't! Why not? Well, we all know that it's human nature to believe that 'the grass is always greener on the other side', and the GOP hasn't taken care of the country's lawn at all...forget using fertilizer, they haven't even watered it. The public is fully convinced that this nation is in a horrible state of disarray (it's not), and they believe that it's Bush's fault (it's not). But regardless of whether or not you agree with my dissention from society's what-have-you-done-for-me-lately persuasion, you must agree that members of the GOP leadership have sat on their collective laurels when it comes to changing the general perception of either of these accepted "truths".


The strategy of McCain's campaign (and that of the rest of the GOP) has been nauseatingly defensive in nature. Currently, they seem to be focusing on two priorities [both ineffectively]: 1) call attention to Obama's daily gaffes, and 2) attempt to distance McCain from Bush. Neither will ever work. Why? Well, as far as the gaffes go, two things would need to happen: 1) the general media (not just Fox News and your occasional radio talk show host like Mike Church) would have to participate in exposing these not as mistakes, but as tenets of Obama's (and his wife's) true ideology: anti-america, anti-white, and anti-wealth for those who earned it; and 2) the American people would have to care. But neither will happen. We all know that the mass media is slanted in favor of the Left (Conservatives continue to whine that former Vice President Dan Quayle was killed in the media for a mere misspelling of "potatoe"). Duh! Deal with it...it has always been that way and it always will be. As for the general public's concern for Obama's mis-speaks, there obviously isn't any...if there were, there's a lot more ammunition against him than a few slips of the tongue. Even if the people don't agree with Obama, they definitely disagree with Bush, so Obama will become the de facto President.


The root of this problem for the GOP is that this race is longer than 6 months. The Party cannot expect to undermine the President for eight years (well, at least three) and then not have those chickens come home to roost on Election Day. Very few of our Republican leaders have 'stood by their man' as the media and the Democrats cast stones over the years. Quite the contrary. From the War to Katrina, Global Warming to the treatment of detainees and his foreign policy, McCain and the GOP have been front-and-center criticizing Bush, providing ammunition to the liberal media and weakening the spirit of the public to the point that Bush's approval rating is in the toilet. Too bad we haven't applied the "no child left behind" policy to our President.


I think I'm going to start referring to the GOP as the GWOP (Guys WithOut Pen-.., um genitals). Someone needs to tell them that hope is not a strategy (except for liberal presidential candidates)...they cannot stay on the defensive and hope the public's perception will change on its own. Instead of trying to discredit the "McSame" image, the Republicans would be better served by enhancing Bush's image and that of the rest of the country. How about contrasting the images of today's state of the Union versus the bleak future of this country if the Democratic policies are implemented? Can we talk about the elephant in the room for a change and go on the offensive for goodness sake? Maybe if the Party showed some cojones for once and got back to conservative principles without apologizing for them, it might not get its rear-end kicked in, and the babies of today might actually know what it's like to say the Pledge of Allegience when they get to school.


Unfortunately, McCain and his cronies will probably have to be losing by 25 points in the polls before they decide that what they're doing isn't working. By then, I fear it will be too late. God Bless America...we'll need it!

"Flip-flop" or CHANGE for the better?

Let's face it, I am not a happy voter these days... I think our choices for President are "Bad" and "Worse". As a conservative I am scared about what John McCain will do to an already weak Republican party in the long term, while as an American I am scared to death of what Barack Obama will do to our country in his first six months, much less four years. Quite frankly, I am undecided about which one is worse in the long run and therefore I honestly haven't decided what I'll do on Election Day. My dilemma is not whether to pull the lever for Obama vs. McCain, but rather whether to pull the lever at all or to spend November 4th at the local watering hole drinking my misery away.

As a conservative voter, I am NOT ready to accept the "current McCain" and don't think that other conservatives should be so ready to throw their support behind him as the de facto option just yet. But, that's fodder for another blog... In the meantime, people ask me what it would take for me to vote for McCain, and as of right now there are two things: 1) select a conservative veepe, and/or 2) change his "maverick" position on many of the issues which I feel are key to the welfare of this country. One of those issues is Energy, and I'm happy to report that McCain is starting to come around on that issue. Of course, this change in tune is causing Environmentalists everywhere to chastise him as a "flip-flopper" which seems to be the label of the day. But is he a flip-flopper based on this issue?

What constitutes a flip-flop? Is the label only used when the culprit flops to a position counter to our own ideology? What evidence do we need in order to determine whether the candidate has had a genuine change of heart versus a mere desire to get votes? I'm not sure that I know all the answers, but I do know that we each need answer those questions for ourselves before criticizing the candidate solely for changing their positions on issues. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't use the same label to categorize a person who has gone to the same church for 20 years then suddenly claims negligence and abandons it because they get some heat in the press versus a person who voted based on their naive inability to predict a future oil crisis in previous years then modifies their position when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Regardless of one's political persuasion, one has to acknowledge that the same phrase cannot be used to describe these two polar situations.

Politicians and political analysts on both sides of the aisle place too much emphasis on whether or not a candidate holds his ground regardless of the issue and circumstances at hand. I am certainly guilty of denigrating politicians for flip-flopping on issues (and McCain has certainly been the subject of my rants in the past), but let's not cut off our noses to spite our faces here...in the case of Energy we're ALL at fault! As a nation we've consumed excessively (I myself owned one of the largest SUV's on the market until 6 months ago) while our political leaders on both sides have forced us into dependency on far less stable (and in some cases hostile) countries for a resource which is absolutely critical to our prosperity, all the while claiming victorious on the "green" front. Whoopee! That got us far, huh?

[Side Note: I wonder how Environmentalists can sleep so much easier knowing that the baby seals in the Gulf of Mexico are safe from those horrible American oil companies while forcing the fish in Persian Gulf to fend for themselves? Do they have that much more faith in Saudi Arabian and Russian oil companies, or is this just another Inconvenient Truth? But I digress...]

The fact that we've all been irresponsible to this point is undeniable. Republican, Democrat, Independent...doesn't matter, they (we) have been wrong all along. But the issue at hand now is not how or why we got here, but how we're going to respond. To hold our ground and refuse to budge positions in order to avoid being deemed a 'flip-flopper' would be irresponsible and nothing short blind stupidity. So, on this issue, I salute John McCain for making a "CHANGE" for the better. Bravo!

Just when I thought I had identified all the reasons why I dislike New York

There are quite a few reasons why I'm not the biggest fan of New York, but after only a few weeks in office following Eliot Spitzer's resignation, Governor Paterson gave me yet another one a couple weeks ago. Since the Senate in New York has not passed Spitzer's proposed legislation to legalize gay marriage, Paterson has decided to take it upon himself to honor same-sex marriages performed in other states and will update ~1,300 New York statutes accordingly. What is it with these non-legislators lately deciding that they can make laws? First, 5 judges in California decide that the votes of all the constituents within the state don't matter, and now we've got governors (who weren't even elected in the first place) enacting laws without even waiting for a vote. Nice.

Apparently, the governor and other sympathetics of the cause cite Article IV, paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution which reads as follows:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Um, wait...since when do we do we follow the Constitution? I thought the role of the legislators was to modify the Constitution beyond recognition, and if that doesn't work, just ignore it altogether? I love how when the Constitution is inconvenient it is ignored as some outdated document written by a bunch of dead white guys during an era which is no longer applicable. Yet, as soon as it affords some self-proclaimed underprivileged group the opportunity to reap benefits to which they would otherwise not be entitled, all of a sudden it's quoted as gospel. Funny how that works. Actually, no it's not.

I think tomorrow I'm going to go buy myself a holster for my .45 calibur pistol that I bought in Texas and start wearing it on my hip. My carrying permit will be recognized by New York according to Article IV paragraph 1, right Mr. Paterson? Or maybe I'll build a casino as a non-Native American (don't get me started) since you'll naturally recognize the laws of Nevada. Better yet, I'll just stop paying state taxes altogether since I wouldn't have to in Florida where I have my house.

Thanks Mr. Governor, this is going to be great... I might actually be able to forget that I live in New York. Well, at least until the next time someone cuts me off on the road and then flips ME the bird.

Thoughts about the Iowa Flood

I was reading some of the reports this morning about the devastating floods in Iowa which have displaced tens of thousands of people from their homes across the state (my birth state, by the way) and neighboring states. My thoughts and prayers go out to all those who are affected by this natural disaster. The devastation of a flood like this is so far-reaching and causes all of us to recall the horrible storm to hit New Orleans some three years ago. The parallels between the Storm of 2008 and Hurricane Katrina are obvious in so many respects. Yet, maybe it's just me, but I can't help but think of the many differences between the two...their devastation may be similar, but the difference in response to the storms is what has my wheels turning.

• I scoured the Internet today, searching for quotes from the Mayor of Cedar Rapids and the Governors of Iowa and Illinois...I couldn't find a single quote wherein they chastised the government, or FEMA, or anyone else for failing to provide enough aid even though the response in terms of the number of National Guardsmen deployed has been nearly identical.

• Have you been watching television? Have you seen a single interview with anyone on the street who is complaining? It seems to me that every man, woman and child who is physically able is filling sandbags and working together to prevent further damage (preliminary estimates indicate more than $1.5 billion in damages so far). Amazingly, they seem to realize that this is no one's fault.

• Even though rescue helicopters have been rescuing those stranded in the flood waters, I've yet to hear of anyone shooting at them. And no reports of looting either for that matter.

• Even though there's not much [read: nothing] he can personally do about the situation, President Bush is planning a visit to Iowa on Thursday - and this time he'll make sure to leave the airport. Why? Probably just to make sure that McCain can't stab him in the back in the press again in order to get Democratic votes like he did on April 24th. Two related points worth noting here: 1) McCain made a huge deal about how poor it was that the President didn't visit the 9th Ward in-person, but he failed to mention that it's likely because Bush was attending HIS 69th birthday, and 2) McCain called the Mayor of Cedar Rapids today, but is not planning to visit in-person. Way to show your support Mr. Senator! Man, I love hypocrites!

• Since we're on the subject of visiting disaster areas, isn't it surprising that the fearless leader of CHANGE hasn't planned a visit to the area? Why is that? Is it because Mr. Obama actually understands that there's no good reason other than to illicit a feel-good response? Uh, doubtful. I think it's more likely that he doesn't have enough time to visit since he and his new endorser, none other than the Nobel Peace Price Laureat Al Gore, need to spin a story to make sure the public understands that this flood is a direct result of Global Warming.

• Finally, does it seem odd to anyone else that all the major newspapers and "news" channels have dedicated more print and airtime to covering the first day of gay marriage in California than to the most significant natural disaster to occur in this country since, well, Katrina?