I'm on Twitter! More Must Reads

    follow me on Twitter

    Sunday, October 31, 2010

    Final Gallup Polling: Uncharted Territory

    Dear Readers,

    The final generic Gallup polling before Tuesday's vote is complete, and it has an unprecedented 55-40 (likely voters) spread in favor of the GOP.  The GOP even leads among registered voters, 48-44.  This is unprecedented. As Gallup says:
    "It should be noted, however, that this year's 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations. This means that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory, in which past relationships between the national two-party vote and the number of seats won may not be maintained."
    Got that?  Uncharted territory.

    Back in April, I touted a Sean Trende article that suggested Dems could lose 100 seats and I said I would not be surprised to see an 80 seat swing.  At the time, I worried that the momentum of the Tea Partiers and those disgusted with the arrogance of Obama/Pelosi/Reid would last until November. It looks like I was wrong to worry.

    If you haven't voted (I have!), get out on Tuesday and drag a few conservative friends with you.

    Crazy Tea Party Quotes, deconstructed...

    In a Facebook exchange, some liberal friends, they passed this link along, of the "14 Craziest Things Tea Party Candidates Believe."

    The article was penned by the Dartmouth educated Gus Lubin.  If this article doesn't pretty much give up Gus's politics, his Ivy League education would be a clue, as would his following list on Twitter.  If you're following Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, and your only people on the right are Sarah Palin, you're not looking for balance, you're looking for confirmation of your own left-wing ideology and for something interesting to be posted by Palin.

    Given that, this article is not surprising.  I don't read Gus's work.  I am sure it's fabulous, in it's self-absorbed, Liberal-self-love type of way (that's called foreshadowing), but, this is vapid.  That is not going to stop me from taking on each of these 14 statements, and try to prove why they're not batshit crazy, and demonstrate a nutty liberal statement in return for each of them.  I'll start with number one on their list, because it involves something all liberals enjoy - Sex with the one they love.
    • Christine O'Donnell "It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE ABSTINENT ALONE. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust."
      O'Donnell said this in a 1996 MTV documentary, "Sex in the '90's" where she was pushing her abstinence agenda, and masturbation was a part of that.  Central to the issue is Matthew 5:28, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who has looked a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  This was clearly the verse former president Jimmy Carter was referring to in his 1976 Playboy interview where he admitted to committing  "adultery in my heart many times."

      Thinking people would largely agree that O'Donnell's on pretty solid ground here in her statement in that most self-love (particularly among men) is focused  on some object of desire (and not usually a car).  And Carter hits the right note that it's really about what's in the heart.  For him, if he looked at a woman with lust in his heart, he felt he had committed adultery.  If I was rating this, I'd say the statement by O'Donnell is "Mostly True," because I think you could argue that if the object of your desire was your spouse, that's probably not adultery.  For info, in her video, Christine frowns on this, as she thinks it would detract from the relationship because it makes the other in the relationship less necessary.  Some men might find that attitude very endearing, some might find it annoying.  I shall stay agnostic.

      One thing O'Donnell doesn't hit in this quote is the issue of masturbation and sin.

      An argument can be made both for and against masturbation as a sin. A pretty good, fair take on the religious aspects of masturbation can be found at About.com's Christian Teens section. Regardless of the technicality of whether it's a sin or not, most people would agree that the objectification of women that is most commonly associated with males and masturbation is generally not a good thing, that the use of pornography and addiction that often results (in males) is destructive to relationships, and that for those with the willpower and ability to reject that which that detracts from their central relationships (with their spouse and their God above all) comes great personal satisfaction and rewards - and, I'd just guess (not copping to anything here) - an improved relationship with the significant other. I'm just sayin'.

      My bottom line on this is - if you're a Christian struggling with this issue - read your Bible, pray, and like so many things, this boils down to your personal relationship with God.  Like so many gray areas, there are places where we clearly cross a line into gray.  The O'Donnell's of the world (and many of your pastors) would suggest staying far off that line.  But, we're sinners and most of us will enter that area and cross it.  If we were perfect, there would be no need for a Savior.
    Liberal Stupidity:
    • I quoted the Carter Playboy interview above, but, I don't find Carter to be wrong, either, just as I don't find anything wrong with O'Donnell's statements.  Sure, the secular Left, who practices the religion of Government-love, finds this focus on a pure relationship among (married) loving couples old-fashioned and silly, but, no less a Leftist than Jimmy Carter shared pretty much the same view, so, this really isn't a Left-Right issue, it's a cultural one.
    So, I'll use this goody from Nancy Pelosi on unemployment benefits:
    "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

    Rally for Stupid People (Who think they're hip and funny)

    Yesterday, Jim Colbert and John Stewart, who you may know as two sometimes funny, often smarmy, always Leftist comedians, held the "Rally for sanity and/or fear" in DC.

    As you would expect, at lot of mostly white, youngish men attended, and some older types who think they're really funny, but aren't really (to paraphrase, if they were half as funny as they think they are, they'd be twice as funny as they are) also came.

    This video pretty much sums up this huge suck-up fest:

    Friday, October 29, 2010

    Weekend Election 2010 Thoughts

    The Republican Governor's Association has done some pretty good ads this cycle. Here's another one:

    Remember November: The Final Act from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

    Tonight, as I watch the final polls coming in, it is clear where the last minute direction is, and it's all in the GOP's favor. My guess is we're still going to see more than 70 seats in the House and the Senate go to the Republicans.

    Monday, October 25, 2010

    Why do these words bother liberals so much?????

    The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    In essence, this was the Founders way of saying, "This government derives its rights from the consent of the governed and what they want it to do." 
    They meant that we had a Federal government, limited in its scope by what we the people granted it.  It is at the core of Federalism that the States, "or to the people" was included in this, the final act in the Bill of Rights. 
    The AFL-CIO, in their blog entry, "'Tenthers' Would Abolish Wage and Child Labor Laws, Social Security, Medicare, and More" accuse conservatives of just that.  Moreover, they equate conservatives who see the 10th amendment as an important check on Federal power to "cultists."
    Of course, their definition of "cultist" in this case is:
    "Most cults are based in some sort of skewed spiritual vision or the worship of a charismatic leader, but there is a re-emerging cult that bows down at the feet of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
    I wonder who the "charismatic leader" is in this case?  In the grammatical sense, they are putting the US Constitution in the role of leader here.  That being the case, I plead guilty.  I am a cultist when it comes to the Constitution.  Hey, AFL-CIO, I served over 20 years in the Navy and I took an oath (and oft-repeated it) to defend that Constitution.  I don't think you could get much more cultist than I was (and still am).  So, if it's "cultist" to love, defend, honor, and protect that document, so be it. 
    What's that make you, leaders of the AFL-CIO?

    Sunday, October 24, 2010

    WSJ Investigation: Biggest spenders in 2010 election cycle - unions, NOT Karl Rove

    I've been following, with some interest, the Washington State senate race, featuring challenger Republican Dino Rossi, against the second dumbest person in Washington DC, incumbent Patty Murray.  I've mainly done this via Twitter, since the initial debate between them (which followed the Reid/Angle debate).

    That has led to some discussions about the funding of these candidates.  Rossi has raised quite a bit of money to make himself competitive in a very blue state, and having been the victim of a stolen gubernatorial race, you can understand he doesn't want to risk another close election, if possible.  A lot of Rossi's recent money has come from the Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads (that scorned upon, by Dems, Karl Rove group).  In fact, Rossi has collected $4.5M from these types of groups.  If you've been awake this week, you know Campaign Finance law allows these groups to not reveal their donors.  This is the crux of the Obamanut argument that "foreign" money is flowing into these groups.  It's, of course, a red herring, since these laws have existed since the passage of CFR and the Democrats made these very useful to them over the last three cycles.  They continue to do so today, as a matter of fact.  In fact, Patty Murray has raised over $600k from one single group, CNN reported "An organization called The Citizens and Strength and Security Action Fund has spent north of $640,000 on Murray' behalf but, as a 501(c)4 organization like Crossroads GPS and American Action Network, is not required to disclose its funding sources."  She's not exactly lilly pure.

    From the administration's ridiculous attacks on right-leaning groups who take advantage of this part of law, the Wall Street Journal this week decided to actually do some reporting on who is donating, and how much.

    That led to this article, which brings some interesting reality-based facts to the discussion.  Turns out the biggest spenders are Unions, leading the way is the service employees union.  The Chamber and American Crossroads, thankfully, are 2 and 3, followed by 2 more unions (see below).  Bottom line, unions are outspending these groups by 30%.


    I don't have a HUGE problem with unions spending money on political campaigns.  I do, however, reject the notion that unions spending money on these campaigns represents the political opinions of their rank and file.  Typically, these groups are funded from union dues, which, in non-right-to-work states, are extorted from workers who work at companies covered under a collective bargaining agreement, with no opt-out provision.  I should point out that Republicans have tried repeatedly over the years, as part of CFR efforts, to insert provisions that would allow workers to opt out of having portions of their dues go towards political campaigns, or that would require unions to create PACS just as management employees have to, and make contributions to these voluntary.

    Obviously, union leaders do not want this to happen, and for good reason.  Once their members realized 1) the amount of money being extorted from them for political purposes, they'd want it back, and 2) they would disagree with a lot of the spending done by their leadership, and seek to change it.  Either way, the net effect would be more responsiveness of union leaders to their rank and file, and less overall money available to union leaders to spend.

    We couldn't have either of those now, could we?

    Campaign finance laws are often byzantine and hard to understand.  They are, by and large, incumbent protection plans, regardless of which side you reside.  One thing almost all of us regular citizens agree on is that more transparency would go a long way to alleviating the problem.

    On the Right, we want unions to play by the same rules as everyone else, and we would generally like to see monetary limits removed.  On the Left, they just seem ok with the right having to be transparent.

    Saturday, October 23, 2010

    Year of the Woman? It already is.

    Listening and reading the expected last ditch campaign tactics of the Left, that Republicans, and especially Tea Partiers are racist hatemongers got me thinking.

    My thoughts wandered over to something else I heard recently a Leftist lament (this NPR report confirms the Leftist bent) - that this year there was such a dearth of female and minority candidates, that all the gains these groups had made, particularly women, in the "Year of the Woman" of 1992 were going to be erased.

    2010 may prove to be a banner year for conservative women.  Already, Sarah Palin-backed candidates have won primaries in Alaska (Miller), Delaware (O'Donnell), Arizona (McCain), California (Fiorina), SC (Haley), Kentucky (Paul).  The Washington Post has a Palin Endorsement tracker, you can see how Palin's endorsements have gone.  Pretty good so far.  It's an easy case to make that the most powerful figure in the GOP today is Sarah Palin.  A woman.

    Even in the Democrat party, the second most powerful person is clearly still Hillary Clinton.  If Hillary really wanted to be the MOST powerful Democrat, she would resign from the Obama administration, and focus on building her support for the 2012 primary season and positioning herself as the savior of the party.  Rush Limbaugh has begun Operation Reverse Chaos to bring Hillary back to her rightful place at the top of the Democrat Party.

    The bottom line is arguably, the two most powerful politicians in this country are women.

    WaPo finally reports on Bam admin's refusal to pursue New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation

    You may remember this from the 2008 elections. A couple of New Black Panther Party members intimidate voters at a Philadelphia polling place.


    The Bush administration's Justice Department initiated a case against these guys, which proceeded during the early part of the Obama administration, until it was dropped, mysteriously. Much prior reporting was done by Fox and Breitbart, but now the Washington Post has done some reporting on this, and the result - much of what the Obama DoJ told us about this case, and how it came to be dropped, was untrue.  As the WaPo article points out, the administration tried to make the decision to drop the case appear as though it was done at a low level, by career legal staffers, while the Post has found that at least the number 2 at Justice was involved in email exchanges about this case, and while they don't explicitly lay the dismissal at Attorney General Eric Holder's feet, he was clearly in the know.

    What is clear from the Post's reporting is that the Obama DoJ and Civil Rights Division is not interested in protecting the voting rights of white voters.
    "There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," a DOJ lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized."
    I followed this story loosely as it unfolded, and just noticed this interesting tidbit about the men, one of whom, Jerry Jackson, who was a Democrat Party poll watcher:
    "Jackson, 54, and Heath, 39 (better known as King Samir Shabazz not his old “slave name” of Maruse Heath), have criminal histories that between them include convictions for drug possession, robbery and simple assault, according to court records. Their local New Black Panther Party is part of a small, radical black nationalist organization with members in a handful of cities. It is not connected to the Black Panther Party of the 1960s."
     I want to know how someone with a criminal record that includes assault and robbery can get certified as a poll watcher????

    Saturday, October 16, 2010

    Wishing we had more "hobbyist" politicians, less career politicians

    Listening to the podcast of the Tony Kornheiser shows this week, and I am forced to listen to MSNBC/NBC "reporter" Chuck Todd and Tony discuss the Rich Iott Nazi uniform to-do (previous post on this), the Carl Palladino dust-up, then some odd chatter about how Todd is upset that billionaires like Palladino take up politics after they've made money as some kind of "hobby."

    I listen to Tony Kornheiser because he's generally funny, it gives me a fix of Redskins sports talk and insight into a group of people (Tony and his cohorts) who are so out of touch with current culture and politics that hilarity ensues (e.g. Tony doesn't know who Hilary Duff is, and his sycophants think she's in her 30's. For the record, she's 23).

    Returning to the Todd discussion, let's put aside that Todd's a thinly veiled shill for the Democrat party (and a likely replacement for Baghdad Robert Gibbs) who fits right in at the rabidly Leftist MSNBC, and analyze the stupidity of their conversation just on the Iott issue then on their thoughts on "career" politicians.

    Regarding Iott, clearly TK had no idea the details of this.  Tony prides himself on doing little research, so I don't blame him for accepting at face value that Iott was some kind of secret Nazi.  But, Todd is supposed to be a reporter (I know).  He could have pointed out, when Tony asked, that Iott had, indeed, portrayed Americans in reenactments and wasn't exclusively a Nazi reenactor.  Since that was buried in The Atlantic's hit piece about 23 paragraphs in, either Todd didn't have the attention span to get that far, or he just felt compelled to ignore it.  Either way, he's a putz.

    Moron Todd and Tony lament the political climate where rich guys seem to think now that they've made their money, they need a new hobby and politics should be it (this is the argument Todd, mostly, tries to use to explain how Palladino got into the NY governor's race).  Of course, Todd goes off on Sarah Palin as an example of someone using her political notoriety to cash in.  While there may be some truth in that, they then decided to hold up as examples of billionaires who actually believe in public service, drumroll, please...Michael Bloomberg and John Corzine.  Bloomberg's an idiot who wants New York City to have a victory mosque 600 feet from Times Square and Corzine was a completely unaccomplished New Jersey Senator and so ruined NJ's economy as Governor that Chris Christie (a Republican) defeated him and is now being lauded for having the fortitude to clean up Corzine's mess.  Please, this is comical.

    Todd further goes on to wish that there were more people who made politics their career, completely exposing why the left-wing media does not get the Tea Party movement (hey, Chuckles, the people want FEWER career politicians, you idiot!).

    Let me list some families who have nothing but politics on their resume.  Most of these people are corrupt or incompetent, and I would like to seem them all retired:

    • The Kennedy's (corrupt, incompetent, drunk, and morally bankrupt)
    • The Dingell's (corrupt)
    • The Clinton's (corrupt)
    • The Reid's (incompetent AND corrupt)
    • The Biden's (incompetent)
    • The Rockefeller's (a waste of air)
    • The Murkowski's (corrupt)
    • The Bush's (ok, the ONE I would like to see seek national office, Jeb, has had his career ruined by his brother - but, most of the Bush's made some money elsewhere before entering politics, so they arent' really just politicians)
    • The Carnahan's (incompetent)
    I am sure there are more families where politics is the family business.  I am also sure they think it's their birthright, their entitlement, and they act like it.  They need to all be put out of business.

    Friday, October 15, 2010

    AARP Approved Beg Letter, modified to reflect reality

    The AARP gave me a neat little template to send to my Senator requesting he send seniors a check for $250, since they're not getting a COLA this year (full disclosure: My parents are seniors).

    I modified it as below and sent it to my Senator.  What do you think?

    I am writing to urge you to provide relief to the millions of Social Security recipients who will not receive their cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2011 by repealing the recently passed Health Care Reform Act.

    For over three decades, millions of older Americans have counted on annual Social Security benefit increases to help them afford their basic needs.  Unfortunately, the benefits they've earned will again be frozen next year, which will leave millions struggling to make ends meet.

    Over the past two years, older Americans have paid more for utilities and food, have experienced a decline in home values, have tried to recover from deep retirement account losses, have experienced rising health and prescription drug costs, and faced longer periods of unemployment.

    The AARP specifically focused on increasing prescription drug costs as a rationale for this needed increase.  Clearly, the passage of HCR has not done a thing to help seniors.  Indeed, it has increased their costs, as well as effectively eliminating the Medicare Advantage program, from which so many seniors benefit.

    I'm counting on you to provide seniors with the immediate relief they need by repealing this onerous and costly bill.

    Thank you in advance for your support on this important issue

    Sunday, October 10, 2010

    Nazi! All Republicans might as well wear the uniform...(or should they?)

    Apparently, Republican Congressional candidate Rich Iott, in the Ohio 9 race, is a Nazi sympathizer.

    And, that's not just standard-fare Leftist characterizations of Republicans in a last-minute effort to win.  No, this comes from "respected" Atlantic senior Editor Joshua Green (ok, that was sarcasm - the Atlantic is a Liberal, bought-and-paid-for-by-democrats rag).

    It seems that the Atlantic has actual photos of Iott in German SS uniforms.  This is their smoking gun.  Iott in German SS (Wiking Division) garb.  Therefore, he's a Nazi!

    If I'm writing this, you know there's a truth in here somewhere.

    The truth is that Iott is a WW2 re-enactor, and he sometimes plays the role of a member of the Waffen SS, Wiking Division.  He has also portrayed US infantrymen and other good-guy roles.  Hey, someone has to play the bad guys in these historical re-enactments, otherwise, I imagine they get kind of, well, boring?

    I know these kind of guys, and Iott is also a Colonel in the Guard, and some guys have a thing for accuracy in re-enactments, and there are more than a few guys who have some deep respect for the German army.  This group has a point, these units were well-trained and skilled warfighters who taught much to the us, Brits and Russians, even after WW2.

    The bottom line is this is a hit piece.  I started by saying it's not standard-fare name-calling, but, that's really all it is, with just a little more of prurient interest to move it along.

    Nancy Kaptur (the D incumbent) is not interested in defending her record, can't defend her record, and Iott was closing the gap against her.  The Atlantic has decided, as I suppose it should, as a mouthpiece of the Left, to try to gin this up.

    Here's hoping it backfires on these a-holes.  For more context, here's a good post from NRO's Battle 10.  Ann Althouse also has some great commentary.

    Friday, October 8, 2010

    Twitter Followers

    Apparently, many of you are NOT using Twitter.  That's too bad, because I think it's one of the best social networking apps created (superior to Facebook, yes).

    I don't pay a lot of attention to the emails I receive telling me who follows me, but tonight, I thought I'd take a look at my followers.  Many people will follow you after you follow them, so, I decided to check out who is following me without me having followed them first, just for fun.

    Not too much interesting, except why is the Mayor of Newark following me?  And The Hill magazine?  The Deputy Commissioner of the Georgia Dept of Agriculture?

    Of course, I followed a few famous people, and they followed me back (you can set Twitter up to automatically follow those who follow you).  John Boehner, Kelsey Grammar, Fred Barnes, The Heritage Foundation, Karl Rove, The Weekly Standard, Mary Katherine Ham.

    Just some random thoughts...

    Desperate Dems Despair

    As the final month of the 2010 election season rolls on, we knew Dems, poised to lose 60-80 House seats and the Senate, would get desperate and start with the usual attacks:

    - Republicans want to starve Granny by taking away her social security
    - Republicans want to kill Granny by cutting her Medicare
    - Republicans want to kill young pregnant womyn by making abortion no longer safe or legal
    - Republicans want to give their fat cat rich friends and big businesses tax breaks at the expense of the working man...

    We knew all those old, tired memes would come out, but, we didn't know that the Bam admin itself was going to get violent, to wit:

    - Joe Biden will strangle any Republican who talks to him about balancing the budget
    - Obama is going to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the Republican Congress

    Maybe Christine O'Donnell can turn them all into actual donkeys...

    Wednesday, October 6, 2010

    I Have Done a Terrific Job...

    New Republican Governor's Association Video.  Pretty nicely done:

    Sestak forgotten...

    In the wake of the disastrous socialist One Nation Rally this past week (attended by a few thousand paid union organizers), Joe Sestak held a rally in Philly, and...no one showed up.  Check out some of these shots - Sestak supporters are outnumbered by Toomey supporters.

    Sestak is, of course, a not too impressive Navy veteran, but Toomey is an authentic conservative, and better represents the Alabama portion of Pennsylvania.  So, it's been a great two years for Pennsylvanians - Arlen Specter showed his true colors, was bounced in a Democrat primary, and the Republican nominee is poised to return some sanity to PA.

    It's crazy, but Pennsylvania is about to have 2 pro-life Senators. What's up with that?

    They must hate womyn up there.

    Sunday, October 3, 2010

    Virginia's Still Shedding Skin

    Navy Times has this AP story on the loss of anechoic tiles on Virginia's: Navy scrambles after subs shed stealthy coating

    As Norman Polmar says, "“We’ve been using anechoic coatings for almost 50 years and in that time, you’d hope that we could get it right"

    In response to the Virginia's shedding ~5% of their tiles.

    Friday, October 1, 2010

    Norway to Israel: No testing here

    The Norwegians have decided that the Isareli's new, German-built submarine, can not be tested in Norwegian waters.

    Have the Norwegians always been anti-semites, or is this some larger ban on testing warships from the home of the Nobel Peace Prize?