Ninety feet from the White House

I’ve thought about this often, ever since her husband won the presidency in 1992. Anyone half-way between reality and dreamland could see the ambition written on her face. When Hillary Rodham Clinton began holding closed-door hearings on proposed health-care reform as First Lady in 1993, I knew then as a 19-year-old college student that it was she who wanted to be president and not her husband. All Bill really wanted was a private office from which to conduct his, um, affairs. Anyone who proposes to convert one-seventh of the U.S. economy to public domain, and who does not hold government office to do it with, must either be crazy or extremely ambitious. The jury is still out on whether it is one, the other or both.
Nevertheless, it was common knowledge inside and outside the Beltway that Bill was a puppet and Hillary was his marionette; she governed through him. The fact that Bill could become president with his political credentials and she could not motivated Hillary to keep their happy home, in spite of Bill’s well-known infidelity. She tolerated the affairs because power was more important to her than loyalty. She wanted the White House more than anything else in the world and nothing or nobody, not even her philanderer husband, was going to keep her from it. First Base.
So, during Bill’s final year in the White House, Hillary decided to make her move. She established a residence in New York State and registered as a candidate for U.S. Senate there. Why New York instead of, say, Arkansas? While I dispute the notion that Hillary is the “smartest woman in the world,” I also concede that she is intelligent, calculating and shrewd. She understands Beltway politics very well. There was a snowball’s chance in hell that a junior U.S. Senator from a backwater state like Arkansas would be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. However, a junior U.S. Senator from New York—one of the most prestigious, power and influential political districts in the entire country—could make a serious run. Furthermore, it was less likely that Hillary would have even been able to secure a House or Senate seat in her home state, considering Arkansas' conservative base.
In a nutshell, Hillary played the averages and decided that the New York senate seat was in her best political interest to run for and win. As a result, she packed her carpet bags for the Empire State, simply establishing residence and never bothering to live there.
Consequently, Hillary succeeded in fooling the voters of New York and got herself elected to the U.S. Senate. Second Base.
Now, after just one and one-sixth terms in the U.S. Senate, Hillary is running for president of the United States and vying for the democratic nomination. She is fixing her power-hungry gaze once again on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Only this time, she’ll be the legal Commander-In-Chief instead of de facto. Third Base.
Hillary is just 90 feet from home plate and in scoring position. She was walked to first, stole second and bunted to third. She is the front-runner for the democratic presidential nomination and is considered by many political pundits to be the one to beat from either party.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume Hillary is elected President of the United States—the first female chief executive. In this day and age, I don’t think too many people would oppose the idea of a woman president—provided she’s the right person for the job. But Hillary’s gender is moot when it comes to what makes an effective commander-in-chief. Frankly, I think her motivations alone disqualify her from seeking the office. Her entire political career has been nothing but a power grab. She has positioned herself over the years for this one moment in time when she can seize for herself the highest seat of power and claim it as her own. She couldn’t do that as a first lady to a governor or a president. She couldn’t even do it as a senator, because her power is only as great as her one vote in the chamber. But the President of the United States is the most powerful office in the entire world, and that is why Hillary wants to be elected to it so badly.
If the state of New York and the people in that district were really important to Hillary, then why is she trying so hard to leave her U.S. Senate seat for a better one in the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? If the people of New York were good enough for Hillary, then perhaps she would stay longer and fight harder than she has for them so far. But the truth is that the people of New York aren’t good enough for Hillary. Of course, neither are the American people, for that matter; but they will have to do in order to get elected President of the United States. No, New York served its purpose. Now, Hillary is in search of much bigger fish to fry. She played New Yorkers like a harp, told them what they wanted to hear, and paid lip service to her constituents long enough to set herself up for a presidential run. Now, what matters to Hillary are Iowa, New Hampshire, California and about 46 other states besides New York.
One question to New Yorkers who voted Hillary into the U.S. Senate: Did she move to New York just to get elected and make a run for the presidency, or did she move there because she really cared about you and the issues of your state? I think it is clear Hillary wanted to represent you about as much as she wants to place second in a presidential election.
The reality is that Hillary used the state of New York for her own selfish purposes. No doubt she wants to use the American people for the same reason.
In the movie “Gladiator,” Marcus Aurelius (played by Richard Harris) urges Maximus (Russell Crowe) to accept anointment as Rome’s next emperor. When Maximus declines the honor, the emperor notes emphatically, “That is why it must be you!” This is because Maximus was not after power. He just wanted to return home to his family, live in peace and be content with what he had. The emperor’s son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), on the other hand, craved the throne and could not wait to seize power. Those of us who watched the movie saw how Commodus ruled the empire once he took power. While the movie itself is popular fiction, it contains an important message to those of us who still have the power to choose our leaders: Those most fit for public office are not the ambitious and certainly not the zealous; rather, they are the humble and the meek.
The candidate who will make the best president is the one who does not seek the office for his or her personal gain, but rather out of citizen duty to and love of country. The best president is one who does not want the office for all its power, glory and potential; but instead accepts it as a responsibility, the heaviness of which could not in good conscience be wished upon anyone.
By all accounts, facts and evidence, Hillary’s road to the White House is wrought with zealousness and ambition—the very traits we ought not entrust to our nation’s highest ranking representative.

Donkey v. Elephant: The Spread

I usually shy away from predictions and forecasts for the simple reason that most things in life cannot be predicted or accurately forecast. Presidential elections are no exception to this rule. However, with the 2008 presidential election season just days away from kicking off with caucuses, I thought it would be kind of fun to put my predictions down in writing and then come back to them in November of next year when the dust has settled.
All debates aside and in spite of formal primary voting, I believe the democrat and republican machines have already chosen their candidates. These two political machines ultimately fingered their candidates before the primary season has even had a chance to begin. This time around, the candidates were anointed right after the 2006 mid-term elections.

Although Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, is generating a great deal of fervor in the democratic party, the donkey will ultimately nominate New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has had the Democratic National Committee in her back pocket since hubby Bill won his first of two elections in 1992. The only way for Obama to steal the nomination would be for Hillary to screw up royally. This, of course, is a possibility—albeit a remote one. Then again, if the Obama camp can find enough Hillary flip-flops, he may just score enough late in the game to beat the buzzer and win the nod. Bill Richardson is the dark-horse candidate here. We won’t really know how well he fares in the race, much less what his chances are, until caucus results start coming in and the primary season is in full swing. As he stands right now, Richardson has little to no chance, given the fact that he is still a relatively obscure candidate who has not gone out and gotten the exposure that Hillary and Obama have. Yet, Richardson may serve a greater purpose than viable candidate: He could give Obama the nod, especially if he is able to take votes from key states like Nevada, California and Iowa away from Hillary. With his Hispanic background, Richardson could easily take latino votes that might have otherwise gone to Hillary.
Nonetheless, despite all the drama building up to Iowa and New Hampshire, I believe Hillary will weather the storms—not because she has the strength to, but because the DNC wants her to. The democratic ticket for 2008 will either be Clinton-Obama or Clinton-Richardson. All nastiness will be put aside for the good of the party.

When it comes to the republicans, the choices seem to be this empty suit, that empty suit or the other empty suit. Between Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, there is an awful lot of lip service being paid to the republican base and not enough substance to back up their boasts. All seem to give very scripted, political responses to tough issues. Rhetoric is what we get in return for demanding answers to the tough questions: abortion, illegal immigration, the war on terror, fuel, trade and taxes. More thought seems to be put into how something is said, rather than on what is said. There is flip-flopping and flop-flipping going on to an annoying degree in a vain effort to cover the broadest range of voters. The only republican candidates not paying lip service to the base are guys like Dr. Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, who state their views very plainly and do not sugar-coat them. And their votes in Congress reflect these views. Unfortunately, they will not win the republican nomination for president; neither will Thompson, Huckabee or McCain, for that matter—albeit for different reasons.
As with the democrats, the republican machine has already narrowed its list down to two candidates: Giuliani and Romney. One has celebrity (Giuliani), while the other has the look and swagger (Romney) of a presidential candidate. The rest of the field can and will try in vain to secure the nod, but in the end, the machine has its man: Rudy Giuliani. Romney is a very close second; but he will only be second. The reason I believe Rudy will get the nomination over Romney is because of the latter’s religious affiliation and the fact that he displays it proudly. There is a very negative perception about Mormons within mainstream America. We hear the jokes all the time. When it is all said and done, few will take Romney seriously simply because he is a practicing Mormon. If not for that one major detail, I’d say Romney would pummel the rest of the field in a landslide; this includes Giuliani. Don’t get me wrong: the race will be very close out west and in the northeast. But Iowa is key: If Huckabee takes Iowa, then whoever wins New Hampshire’s caucus wins the nomination. That will not be Huckabee. Rather, it will come down to Giuliani and Romney, who will probably win out west. But again, I believe the Republican National Committee feels that it owes the nomination to Rudy, who has hung tough against the democrats in a heavily democratic region. Besides, who best to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in New York than the most popular NYC mayor in recent history? Giuliani also would give Hillary a run for her money out in California, considering his “progressive” views on gay marriage (San Fran, anyone?) and illegal immigration (the largest per capita population of which resides in the Golden State). However, should Romney somehow win in Iowa and keep control of the west, all the votes in New Hampshire and the northeast may not be enough to give Rudy the nod.
But Iowa, full of Midwest protestants, is more likely to vote for Huckabee, a Baptist minister. Huckabee and Iowa are the functional reasons why I believe Giuliani wins the nomination. But the real reason is because it is Rudy’s time and the RNC owes it to him. Look for a Giuliani-McCain or Giuliani-Huckabee ticket for the general election.

Now that we have the horse race down to two candidates, a fair assessment of their chances is warranted.
Hillary will win Illinois, especially with Obama as her running mate. She also will likely win Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Colorado. She may take Louisiana and Tennessee in the south. If her running mate is Richardson, she will probably control much of the southwest, except for the Lone Star State. Just because she is Hillary and a democrat, Texas belongs to Giuliani.
The key states, however, in this year’s race are New York and California. Flip a coin and call it: that will probably determine who wins either state and the electoral votes needed to secure the presidency. Personally, I think it could go either way in both states. If Giuliani can woo enough gay and latino voters by maintaining progressive stands on issues important to these groups, he could snatch California out from under Hillary’s nose. His appeal in New York City is probably less questionable than throughout all of New York State. But win NYC and you probably win the state. Yet, Hillary proved how easily NY voters could be duped (after all, they voted in a carpet-bagger for U.S. Senate, didn’t they?) and manipulated into doing her will.
So, all this speculation leads up to my prediction….drum roll.
The next President of the United States will be….Rudy Giuliani. I think he will defeat Hillary narrowly by virtue of winning California. He will get a boost and endorsement from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may end up receiving a cabinet post in the Giuliani Administration for his support.
Giuliani will also carry the southwest, including Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. California will be the next Florida, in terms of controversy as allegations of helping illegals to vote at the polls will be leveled against the winning candidate.
In the end, many of the smaller states out west, in the south and in the midwest—whose electoral votes helped Bush obtain and retain the White House—are not ready for a woman president. Therefore, the republicans win yet another close presidential election.

But wait: There may be a wild card in play here. In every presidential election since 1992, there has been a third-party candidate, whose votes have meant the difference between winning and losing for the two major political parties. In 1992, H. Ross Perot and his Reform Party garnered 11 percent of the popular vote to award democrat William Jefferson Clinton the White House and deny President George H.W. Bush a second term. In 1996, Perot’s votes also cost Sen. Bob Dole a possible upset of Clinton. Recall that in 1992 and 1996, neither of Clinton’s victories was considered a landslide, despite the third party votes. In 2000, it was Ralph Nader and his Green Party that took away precious votes in key states like Tennessee and Florida from former Vice President Al Gore. Even though the blame was placed on the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling in favor of George W. Bush, the culprit was likely the three percent of the popular vote that Nader denied Gore. And in 2004, Nader supporters further denied Sen. John F. Kerry votes in key states like Nevada and Ohio. This resulted in a Bush re-election.
Look for a third party to arise from either the left, right or both. A four-party race would indeed make this an interesting election season. Suddenly, the fringe elements would be critical to a democrat or republican success or failure. Nader sounds like he may enter the fray again, so beware democrats. And if Ron Paul’s supporters convince their candidate to separate himself from the Republican Party, then I would predict a likely democratic victory in November. Why? Because right-sided third parties tend to generate more votes than the left-sided ones historically.
Provided there is no third party to spoil the republican candidate’s chances, then Rudy should win by a nose. As for Hillary, well, let’s just say she’s not even close to her husband.

Don’t feel too sorry for Jamie Lynn

The announcement by Jamie Lynn Spears that she was pregnant has headlined newspapers, magazines, broadcast news, gossip columns and internet blogs for the past several days. The news has given the Hollywood paparazzi the fodder it hungers for on a daily basis. Miss Spears and her mother can pat themselves on the back now for a job well done. The heat on Jamie Lynn’s older sister, Britney, has been diverted for about the next nine months or so. No doubt the paparazzi will be more interested in the development of Jamie Lynn’s baby bump than it will in anything Britney may say or do. Remember the up-to-the-minute coverage the Hollywood press provided during Katie Holmes’ pregnancy? How about the orgasm the gossip media suffered during Brangelina’s gestation period? It seems like every time a Hollywood starlet or couple has one in the oven these days, it makes the lead story for weeks on end until the baby is born. Once the little tike pops out, though, the drama is over. After all, you probably won’t find too many paparazzi photos of entertainers nursing their newborns in public. The reality is that as soon as the child pops out and is spanked, he/she is placed in the capable hands of a professional 24-hour nanny, who is more like a surrogate mother than an employee.
Jamie Lynn may be a kid having a kid, but she won’t have near the obstacles that the average 16-year-old pregnant girl faces. She won’t need to finish school, because as a celebrity, she is probably tutored at home. Besides that, she already has more money than most people can even dream of seeing in their lifetimes. Child care won’t be a problem, because she can afford to pay for round-the-clock nursing services with her money. She won’t need a job to support herself or her baby, because she is getting plenty from Nickelodeon for her television show, which will welcome her back once the child is born. She also will receive royalties for photo-shoots, product endorsements, book deals and appearances on afternoon talk shows. And as for social disapproval, Jamie Lynn is sheltered by the patronizing tolerance of Hollywood. She will never have to worry about being shunned by family, friends and neighbors. She will not have to be held accountable for her actions and she does not have to accept responsibility, either. That has been taken care of by her mother and Hollywood.
Finally, Jamie Lynn doesn’t need to pursue child support because of her celebrity income; although I am certain that grandma will pursue it anyway, just because the more money, the merrier.
I understand that Jamie Lynn’s sob story may tug at a few heart strings. Yes, she is 16 and pregnant. Yes, she was knocked up by an older boyfriend, who is paying lip service to the Spears family and the media by stating right now that he wants to marry Jamie Lynn and become the child’s father. But he may be out of the picture by the time the baby is born. It is likely that he will be another one of these dead-beat dads whose only interest in their children is the check they are required to write every month. The guy is 18 years old. While he may be a legal adult by virtue of his age, he is essentially still an immature kid who is frightened by the prospect of parenting so early in his life. Even if the boy follows through and marries the girl, I wonder how long their union will last in spite of the child they have made together? Just look at the example that big sister Britney has given Jamie Lynn: Divorced and lost custody of her two children. Hollywood’s track record of lasting marriages has always been the pits. And the Spears’ matriarch is no role model, either. She seems to relish life as a celebrity mother and now grandmother, soaking up the fun and sun of Hollywood. Knowing the kind of moral depravity that exists in Hollywood, why would a family-oriented woman like Mrs. Spears even think of driving her girls into show business? The natural instinct of most mothers is to protect their children from exploitation; not push them into it.
Truth be told, mom may be the biggest culprit in this sinister family circle of premarital sex, pregnancies, failed marriages and custody battles. She apparently did not teach her daughters about how to handle the birds and the bees. It is one thing to sit down with your kid and explain sex, but it is another thing entirely to help a kid understand how to handle the pressures of sex. I doubt that she taught her daughters about the value of saving themselves for marriage or how important staying married is once children enter the picture. The Spears girls have no clue about the link between sexual self-respect and self-efficacy. They never learned that saying no doesn’t make them a prude and certainly doesn’t devalue their worth as human beings. Actually, saying no shows just how strong you can be. Saying no demonstrates to others that there are things more important to you than being liked, wanted or desired. It shows you are a whole person, who knows your limits and how to control your primal urges. Saying no makes you a better human being.
Sadly, the Spears girls were raised to see themselves and their bodies as objects of desire, rather than a temple to be admired and respected. They were raised to place a higher value on the physical, rather than the intangibles that make us uniquely who we are. They are clueless as to how a woman achieves esteem and confidence without using her body. Thanks, mom.
But I digress: Having said all of that, this is where my pity for Jamie Lynn Spears ends. My heart really goes out to the unborn child, whose future is weighted down with a lot of questions. What kind of mother will Jamie Lynn be, considering the examples set by Britney and grandma Spears? What kind of father, if any, will the sperm-donor be? Will the child even have its mother and father much at all in its life? Or, will mom be too busy with her celebrity lifestyle to be bothered with raising the kid? Will the child call its paid nanny “mom” instead of its birth mother? What sort of values will this child be taught? In 16 years, will the child have a child of its own, too??
There are just too many questions and not enough time to answer them all.

January Madness is tourney time for candidates

January 2008 will be to democrats and republicans what March is to college basketball: Madness.

If you thought 2007 was ugly, just wait for the first presidential caucuses and primaries to get under way. Fireworks on New Year's Eve will not compare to those launching in several states to kick off this upcoming presidential election year. If the extremely early campaign season, which began unequivocally in January 2007, has been any indication, then Vote 2008 is shaping up to be a doozy of a fight. Below is a breakdown of the democratic and republican contenders....Do I sense a new reality TV show forming??

The Dems...

Hillary Clinton. Three words best describe Hillary Clinton for President: Brand-name recognition. She may be the democratic front-runner for nomination in 2008, but Mrs. Rodham Clinton had better not count her chickens before they hatch. In the early going, she is receiving pretty stiff competition from junior Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, who has done more to energize and reinvigorate democratic voters in the past several months than Mrs. Clinton did in all of her husband’s eight years in the White House. She is neither inspiring, nor confident, nor unifying as Obama appears to be. Truth be told, Hillary represents the old guard of liberal democrats; you know, the ones who have consistently lost presidential elections since 1968. Yeah, I know Bill won two terms in office in the 1990s; but really, Clinton masqueraded as a "new democrat," and he got a lot of help (11 percent of the popular vote) from the Texas Parrot.
But I digress: Hillary and her camp are taking 2008 for granted. They think the 2008 nomination and the White House are hers for the taking; the presidency is hers to lose. Some even have gone so far as to metaphorically anoint Hillary as the next President of the United States. Lest we forget, this is still a republican democracy and not a monarchy; there are no anointed ones here.
Hillary’s campaign is reminiscent of the NFL’s 1969 Baltimore Colts, who all but laid claim to the Super Bowl III title before the game was even played. That kind of braggadoccio led to the celebrity of Broadway Joe Namath and his upstart New York Jets. The celebrity in this case may just well be Barack Obama.
As Hall of Fame baseball legend and former New York Yankee Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” Hillary would be wise to learn from history.

Barack Obama. He is the “rock star” of the 2008 presidential campaign. He is also an upstart, which historically do not have the greatest track record of winning elections. While Obama may be the “hot ticket” for democratic voters right now, there is still plenty of time in the race for him to peter out and lose steam. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? The populist and former republican presidential candidate caught fire early with conservative voters. But by the summer of 1996, Bob Dole had wrapped up the nomination. Barack risks falling into the same trap as Buchanan: Believing his press clippings. He is in great position and poised to upset front-runner Hillary Clinton; but if Barack gets careless with his campaign, Hillary can easily distance herself from him. She has name recognition, influence, party muscle, and the strength of her husband’s tenure in office behind her.
Where Barack may fizzle is down the stretch (like Buchanan), because of Hillary’s reach. In 1996, Bob Dole had it in with the powers of the Republican Party; something Buchanan did not have. Likewise, Hillary has the democratic machine behind her. Barack just has popularity. In a republican democracy, popularity alone does not win elections, much less nominations.

John Edwards. He is the folksy candidate, who tries appealing to the common voter through his country swagger. Unfortunately, folksy candidates don’t always “cut the mustard” as president. People want leaders, not neighbors for president; they want someone who can make the tough decisions that most of us are not willing to make. But this isn’t necessarily a stumbling block for Edwards. What may doom Edwards is his disingenuousness. To put it bluntly, he is a fake, a fraud, and a polished court room actor. He can make a person believe that he is just like their neighbor; but the reality is that John Edwards is an elitist, and not anywhere near like the common man he claims to be. After all, how many “common” people own and live in a 24,000-sq. ft. mansion? How many average folks earn a living as a trial lawyer, whose job it is to persuade juries to award their side exorbitant cash awards? And how many common men put career or political ambitions above their families when there is a personal crisis? I mean no disrespect to the Edwards’ family here, but an ordinary man whose wife is suffering from recurrent malignant cancer would want to spend as much time with her as possible, rather than spending it at the office. God only knows how much more time Elizabeth Edwards may have on this earth. John should focus all of his energy on spending quality time with her, instead of pursuing the presidency. He may well have other chances to run in the future; but when Elizabeth is gone, he won’t have any more chances to spend with her.

Bill Richardson. The former New Mexico governor and U.S. Energy Department Secretary appears to be running in the middle of the pack of democratic candidates at this point in the race. He is neither a stand-out, nor front-runner, nor a “rock star.” To a vast majority of political pundits, he is just another candidate crowding the field and clogging up the road for the Hillary Express. As far as official Washington is concerned, he has next to no chance of winning the democratic nomination for president. Funny, there was a lot of the same sentiment being felt about Bill Clinton in the early days of his candidacy for president during the 1992 campaign. He was a former governor of Arkansas (where the heck is that, anyway?!?) who was dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct in the Jennifer Flowers scandal. Yet, by July 1992, William Jefferson Clinton had secured the party nomination for president and went on to upset incumbent President George H.W. Bush for the presidency that November. Richardson finds himself being characterized and categorized in much the same fashion Clinton was during his first campaign for president. Richardson, like Clinton, is being overlooked by much more higher profile candidates. But mark my words: Bill Richardson is as legitimate a candidate for the democratic nomination as any currently in the field. History has shown that the dark horse can win from time to time; albeit not with regularity. What Richardson has going for him: (1) Gubernatorial experience. This means he has been a state governor. History favors former governors, such as Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, LBJ, etc. (2) federal cabinet experience. Richardson served during Clinton’s presidency as secretary of energy in the White House cabinet. Besides Hillary, he would know better than the other candidates how things work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (3) U.S. Senate experience. Prior to his cabinet post, Richardson had served some time as a U.S. Senator. (4) He is Hispanic. Richardson can appeal to latino voters perhaps as no other presidential candidate has ever done before. And with a growing Hispanic population across the United States, they may well just be the swing voters every other candidate will try to attract. By virtue of his ethnicity, Richardson will have instant appeal with a great many latinos. The bottom line: Richardson has a more well-rounded resume of “leadership,” not just political experience, going for him. Beware of the dark horse, lest you be nipped at the wire.

Dennis Kucinich. I know little about the history and background of this candidate, other than the fact that he is a senior member of the House of Representatives, representing Ohio. But what I do know is that he is too far to the left for most voters in the United States. Most likely, the next President of the United States will be someone who appeals to the center. That has been a long-standing trend. Kucinich represents the traditional democratic candidate, who masquerades as champion of the "little guy" and the average Joe. Bottom line: He is just another foot soldier within the democratic ranks. He is not a member of the "top brass" as Hillary, Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and other senate dinosaurs are. Kucinich also lacks the charisma and charm needed to be a presidential front-runner. He lacks widespread appeal. When he speaks, strange things come out of his mouth. I think he may also suffer from a bit of little man's syndrome, given his physical stature. He is of slight build and below average height. For some reason, his aura reminds me of another "little guy" who got his start with the Jacobin Society and rose to the position of Emperor of France. The only thing missing with Kucinich is a funny hat and a pose with his hand tucked in his shirt. Who knows? As the primary season gets more desperate for him, I wouldn't rule that out.

Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. How many times have these two veteran senators ran for the democratic nomination for president? More than I care to count. I use the term "veteran senators" out of respect. But the truth is, these two career politicians are has-beens that are on their way to cushy Congressional pensions. They run for president not because they are really serious, but because they can't get enough of the attention that presidential primaries give them. Both of these fellows come from districts overshadowed by more significant senate seats in the Northeast United States, namely Massachusetts and New York. I mean, unless you live in Delaware or Connecticut, who in Washington or the rest of the country really cares? Furthermore, these democratic dinosaurs date back to the LBJ era and are old-school liberals, who historically have a hard time winning general elections. Can you say Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern, Kerry? This describes Biden and Dodd to a tee. Finally, these guys seek just about every democratic presidential nomination because they do what their party tells them to in order to make the race more interesting. These guys are dyed-in-the-wool blue-bloods, who would walk over hot coals for their party. Dodd and Biden are to the democratic primaries what a color guy is to a play-by-play announcer. They are the flavors of the month, and that's about it.

Mike Gravel. Um, who? Oh, yeah, the guy from Alaska, right? Well, consider Mr. Gravel to be like one of those obscure ornaments on a Christmas tree: You never see it, and probably don't even remember it is there. But nonetheless, in its own obscure way, it helps to decorate the tree. Gravel's purpose in the field of democratic candidates seeking the presidential nomination is the same as that of Dodd, Biden and Kucinich: It is to give the illusion that the race is not a runaway for the front-runners.

Now, the Reeps...

Rudy Giuliani. “Rudy! Rudy! Rah, rah, rah!” The only Rudy more inspiring than the former NYC mayor is the Notre Dame alum who had a movie made about him. And, frankly, if many people had their druthers, they would rather elect Rudy Ruettiger president of the United States than Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani. Hands down, Giuliani is the popular republican candidate. But popularity alone won’t elect him. What makes Rudy a strong candidate is his consistency on issues, as well as a willingness to stand in and take the punches as they come. That takes guts, which is something many politicians these days lack. I don’t think Rudy is out to win a popularity contest; he doesn’t have to, because he is already the popular candidate. Moderates and liberal republicans will flock to Rudy, who will have a tough time attracting the conservative base of the party given his liberal stands on social issues. However, like Hillary, Rudy is a brand-name candidate. He will attract republican brand voters. The greatest concerns for Rudy, though, are the skeletons in his closet; namely his marital history and iconsistent stands on major republican issues, such as second amendment, gay marriage and abortion. Most voters tend to avoid candidates who literally stick out like sore thumbs. Look for Rudy's opponents to exploit his weaknesses and attempt to make him stick out.

Mitt Romney. Although he has the look, swagger and charm of a president, Mitt also represents the old-guard, country club republican. He is financially wealthy and has a background in corporate America, which has been painted by the media as evil in modern times. Many swing voters might see Mitt as just another rich white guy looking to move into the nation's most prestigious mansion. Yet, Mitt Romney has a lot going for him as well. He seems to have a level of integrity that is uncanny in today's political climate. He has gubernatorial experience, which historically bodes well for presidential candidates. And, Mitt can hang his hat on the success of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, which he helped to reinvigorate from bust into a boon. But look for Mitt’s opponents to exploit his “180” on abortion and other issues that can and will be dug up. The effort will be to paint Mitt as a flip-flopper. And we all know how well Sen. John F. Kerry fared in 2004. Otherwise, Romney is a good communicator, has charisma, and has experience and leadership behind him as a former governor of Massachusetts. Besides, any republican who can serve a full term as governor of the most liberal state in the country, while proudly identifying himself as a mormom, must have some good qualities.

John McCain. At risk of sounding callous, if it hadn’t been for his unfortunate stint as a Vietnam POW, would we know or even care who John McCain is? Indeed, would John McCain even be the high-profile politician he is today, running for president a second time? Other than the McCain-Feingold Bill –- which blatantly violates the free-speech clause of the Bill of Rights and has handcuffed mostly his own republican party’s ability to raise campaign money –- what else is John McCain known for? He is a Vietnam POW survivor, who happened to get elected to the U.S. Senate. But John McCain is not presidential material. He is to be admired and respected for his service in Vietnam; but that does not necessarily make him an effective leader. McCain exudes neither confidence, nor inspiration, nor unification. He does not have a defined voting base, either. By and large, conservatives don’t support McCain because of his liberal stands on illegal immigration, globalization of the economy, and his voting record in support of big government. Moderate and liberal republicans also do not favor McCain because of his conservative views on abortion and other social issues. To many, McCain is just another flip-flop-wearing empty suit running for office. He is kind of like the republican version of John F. Kerry. Scary.

Fred Thompson. His political opponents will attack him on his resume. First, Thompson needs to separate himself from the “country-club republican” stereotype that his tenure in the U.S. Senate was surrounded by. If he cannot, then political enemies will succeed in painting Thompson as just another rich white guy looking to take care of his own. Second, Thompson’s career as an actor can be as much a weakness as a strength. No doubt, political opponents will attempt to paint him the same color as Reagan: a good actor and nothing more.

Dr. Ron Paul. While I respect this man for his integrity and devotion to the U.S. Constitution, his libertarian views just won't jive with the mainstream voter, who is increasingly identified as moderate and generally reluctant to accept a position of shrinking the scope and size of today's federal government back to Constitutional levels. In addition, Paul's personal stand against abortion appears to be in conflict with libertarian principles, which although do not condone abortion, also do not seek to prevent its practice. I do not get the sense that he is the "live and let live" candidate his campaign wants us to believe him to be. He is also out of touch with the reality of the War On Terror. He wants to cut-and-run in the Middle East and leave everything unfinished. I appreciate his respect for the words of America's first president, George Washington, who warned against meddling in foreign affairs. And I agree with it wholeheartedly. But financially, we can't just pull up the drawbridge and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Economically, we have entangled ourselves so much in China and the Middle East that a sudden retreat could cause a depression or ruin to our domestic economy. This needs to be done gradually, not all at once. As far as the War On Terror, lest we forget that the terrorists brought this war to our soil. It is more prudent to take the fight to them than let them come back here and fight us. Perhaps Paul's biggest disadvantage is not his views on the War On Terror or foreign trade, but rather his age. At 72, he would succeed Ronald Reagan as the oldest president ever to take office. That just does not happen very often. And I think the mentality of today's uninformed swing voter is to vote for the most youthful, most energetic candidate.

Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. Good guys, great views, but too far to the right for moderate mainstream America and the swing votes there. These guys are blunt and to the point on their views. They do not sing, dance or entertain. The uninformed American voter, though, seems to like those who do. Tancredo and Hunter are the meat and potatoes of republican politics; but they are considered to be too high in fat and cholesterol for the appetites of moderate voters, whose palates tolerate only fad diets and sweet desserts as opposed to a hearty meal. What these two will do during this campaign season is help bring attention to issues that the front-runners would prefer to avoid, and that's good for debate.

What part of “illegal” don’t we understand?

Much ado about nothing has been made concerning the current debate over illegal immigration.
I just don’t get why there is any debate at all. An illegal alien, or immigrant more softly put, is just what the term says—illegal. This means that a law has been subverted, broken or ignored. When we drive over the posted speed limit, we are ignoring and breaking the law. When we fail to report income to the IRS, we are breaking the law. And when we move to another country without reporting to the immigration authorities, we are breaking the law.
What part of “illegal” don’t we understand? When we break the law, we can expect there to be consequences. Many of us drive over the posted speed limit every day without getting pulled over and cited. But when we eventually do, we become angry and upset because we finally got caught; not because we felt picked on.
Illegal aliens probably feel picked on with all the attention on immigration these days. But the reality is that they are not being picked on. They have just gotten caught breaking the law, and “We the People” of the United States are demanding that the law be enforced. It is just that simple.
Now, I realize that deporting illegals back to their home countries threatens to break up families. After all, millions of illegals have crossed our borders over the years to have their babies in the United States. A child of an illegal born on American soil is considered a naturalized U.S. citizen. The buzz-word for these children is “anchor-baby,” the practice of which has created quite a dilemma for lawmakers, who are supposed to defend and enforce the U.S. Constitution, which applies to anyone with legal United States citizenship. Many illegals know about this loophole. Thus, the “anchor-baby” practice has grown exponentially over the years.
However, the blame for breaking up families of illegal aliens is misplaced on U.S. laws and the American people who demand enforcement. Those responsible for breaking up families are the illegals themselves. They knowingly put their families in jeopardy by crossing our borders illegally, and taking no steps to protect their families by becoming legal residents.
Lawmakers are also partially to blame for failing to enforce the immigration laws that have been on the books for decades. Because of the inaction of authorities, illegal aliens have crossed our borders by the millions without any fear of consequences, simply because they believed there would be none.
Frankly, the children of illegals should go with them—whether or not they are naturalized U.S. citizens—to avoid the break up of families. When they become legal adults, they can return here and present their birth certificates as proof of citizenship. Either that or they can be placed in temporary foster care or live with legal relatives until their parents can obtain legal status.
A third and far less advisable option is to amend the Constitution to specify that “naturalized” means those born in the United States to legal citizens. (Personally, I think this should be a last resort. I don’t like the idea of changing the language of the Constitution, because it has the potential of opening a can of worms.)
The bottom line here is that there is a right way and a wrong way to enter and live in the United States. Millions of people have done it the right and legal way before. There is no reason why they can’t continue to do so.
Relaxing immigration laws to accommodate illegals is an insult to the many immigrants who are trying and waiting to enter the United States legally. Essentially, illegals are being given a free pass to avoid the lines of immigrants lawfully seeking citizenship. This only makes those doing the right thing look like suckers.
In the rudimentary sense, allowing illegals to remain here rewards cheaters and punishes the honest. If our country is willing to look the other way on immigration laws, then what is the point of having laws in the first place? A dog without any teeth can only bark. A homeowner without any defense can only scream and yell. And a nation without enforcement of its laws is weak and vulnerable to exploitation. By ignoring immigration laws, the United States of America continues to open itself up to be undermined from within by those who wish to destroy our nation and its infrastructure—be them terrorists or other groups with agendas and ulterior motives.
How many more terrorist attacks must we suffer before immigration laws and our borders are enforced? When will our country wake up to the reality that America’s sovereignty is being dissolved by the acid rain of apathy, complacency and indifference? A war has been waged on America’s culture, language and heritage by those who only have their own self interests in mind. And the self-interested, knowingly or not, have diluted the meaning and importance of being a citizen of the United States of America.
The only way to restore America’s legacy of being that shining city on a hill, full of hope and opportunity for the world’s tired and huddled masses, is not to continue down the path of open borders and government freebies for lawbreakers. This only encourages future lawlessness and brings people to our country for the wrong reasons.
The way back is to restore the value of legal immigration, making the decision of coming to America one of hope for a new life, prosperity and the opportunity to pursue dreams. Doing so may just restrain the cancer of mass ignorance of law and order that currently exists in our country.
Laws are broken everyday, but only those not enforced grow into bigger, uncontrolled problems. We best repair the leaks in the dam before it bursts, because when that happens, all that shall remain will be the aftermath. Frankly, I’d rather clean up the mess left by a few obnoxious leaks now than build the dam all over again when it is too late. Water is much harder to contain once it has spilled.

Madam President

Some say America isn’t ready yet for a woman president. Others say we are long overdue. Frankly, I do not have reservations about a woman in the Oval Office; as long as she is the right woman. I do not believe Sen. Hillary Clinton is she.
Besides her left-wing politics, I am disturbed by her apparent motive.
Is it any wonder to the thinking person why Hillary and Bill set up residence in New York State, rather than return to the latter’s home state of Arkansas? I think Hillary knew she would not get elected to anything back in Arkansas, and her political ambitions would fade faster than a New York minute.
Furthermore, Arkansas is not exactly the nucleus of socio-political power in Washington, D.C., much less the entire country. To someone like Hillary, the state of Arkansas is akin to a backwater rest-stop on her road trip to the Beltway. She tolerated it long enough to help get her hubby elected President. Then, she was on to bigger and better things. Other than the ribbon-cutting ceremony for Bill’s library, I'm not sure Hillary has been back to Arkansas since she left there in January 1993.
But here is the real reason why Hillary packed her carpetbags for New York: She knew that she could win the Senate seat there. Her political insider friends assured her that the voters of that district would support her. She also understood that if one wants to get on the fast-track to political power in the United States of America, you have to do so either in New York, California or Texas. …Well, she wasn’t going to set foot in Bush country. And California was the territory of her good friends Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. I guess New York was a no-brainer, then.
Hillary Clinton, I believe, does not have the best interests of the American voter at heart. I think she has her own interests at heart. Why else would she move to New York? Not because she liked the people, but rather she liked what the people there could do for her. That just goes to show how smart the folks in New York State are. They vote in an obvious carpet-bagger whose only interest is to grab a Senate seat so she could further her own political ambitions for the White House. She has totally taken advantage of the people of her district, duping them into thinking that she really wanted to be their Senator. While all along, what she really wanted was to just get her foot in the door.
Hillary timed her move perfectly, too—right after she and Bill left the White House in January 2001. By the time of the 2008 elections, she will have a term and a half of experience in the Senate to rest on her laurels.
So, buyer beware! If you vote for Hillary, just remember that you’ll be feeding the appetite of another power-hungry politician, and giving her what she covets most: More power.

Do as I say, not as I do

When former Vice President and current celebrity Al Gore strode up the steps of the U.S. Capitol earlier this year to testify on behalf of Mother Earth, the halls of Congress hushed to hear the propaganda—er, message—that turned this once-failed presidential candidate into an overnight celebrity expert on global climate change.
The funny thing is, not even the traditionally “progressive” (read that “liberal”) news media seemed to take Gore seriously enough until Hollywood threw its weight, money and influence behind a documentary starring the former U.S. vice president. Suddenly, global climate change became a major issue deserving of attention and in need of action.
Why is it that whenever Hollywood opens its mouth and pocketbook, our popular culture decides to take on the issue as though it was some great, big crisis or problem? How is it that one drab movie about how man is destroying the earth can suddenly demand the attention of the public? The phenomenon is called “propaganda,” a tool as old as time used to persuade the masses to conform to the will and wishes of those pushing the message. But the liberal elitists smartly disguise their propaganda messages as “compassion” and “science.”
We, the subjects, are expected to conform or else face the ire of the powerful elite and risk being painted as uncompassionate, cold-hearted, uncaring slobs. This is classic peer pressure. Remember as kids how we were lectured by our parents and teachers about the dangers of peer pressure? Oddly enough, nobody seems willing to make the link between environmental propaganda and peer pressure, which is advanced through fear, guilt and threats of being ostracized. Pushers of the global warming agenda are intent on scaring people into submission by announcing that the earth will be destroyed and us along with it if we continue on our current consumption course; instilling a deep sense of guilt for driving our cars and using energy to power our lives; and placing skeptics and critics on the spot by labeling them as ignorant, stupid, greedy and selfish.
Do you know about the Weather Channel weather woman who has stated that any meteorologist who does not agree with global warming should have his or her American Meteorological Society (AMS) certification revoked? A number of weather men and women have been placed on the spot to conform to global warming theory or face losing their membership in the AMS. Can you say, “ostracize”?
Meanwhile, Al Gore and his fellow Hollywood elite are on their soapboxes preaching about the need to be “green,” and alter our lifestyles, because if we don’t then the earth will burn up and we are all going to die. Yet, Gore and his celebrity supporters are traveling around the country in their private jets, luxury motorcoaches and limousines, wining and dining on the environmentalist dollar while on the speech circuit. In fact, Gore’s 10,000 square-foot home and its gluttonous energy usage is a direct example of the very problem he is preaching about. His home, while large by most peoples’ standards, is a microcosm of the multiple mansions and luxury vacation homes owned by his Hollywood allies.
I wonder, do the stars make sure they are using fluorescent light bulbs in all of their residences? Are they careful to transport themselves only in electric hybrids or bicycles wherever they go? Do they carpool in their limos to and from studios, galas and parties? Yeah, I know Leo DiCaprio says he owns a hybrid; but does he actually use it? There’s a huge difference between owning something that sits in a garage collecting dust and actually using it.
The hypocrisy of the left—especially in Hollywood and other elite circles of liberalism, such as academia—is ripe. As I see it, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If changing our lifestyle to balance out our “carbon footprints” is necessary, then it is also needed among the elite who are preaching it. But that is not the way liberal elitists like Gore think. To them, just bringing the issue to the table is enough to make them “carbon neutral.” They are doing their part simply through discourse and activism. Therefore, they are exempt from the proposals that apply to the rest of us.
When Sen. James Imhoff, R-OK, questioned Gore during testimony about whether or not he is doing his part in this global warming problem, the former VP side-stepped the issue by saying that he is carbon neutral, because he makes up for some deficiencies by doing other green things. He rationalized the need to continue flying from place to place delivering his message of doom and destruction.
Uh, sorry, Al, that doesn't cut the mustard. First, you should down-size from a 10,000 square-foot house that sucks at least three times as much energy out of the environment than your typical American’s home. Second, trade in your SUVs, town cars and limousines for the tiny little hybrid that the rest of us are urged to drive. Third, stop flying around on jets, using up jet fuel and expelling contaminants into the air. Instead, use the Internet, which you claim to have invented, to conduct virtual conferences.
If you do need to be somewhere in person, then drive your hybrid or ride your bicycle. But you might want to give yourself a few days or weeks to get to where you are going. Hybrids don’t fly as fast as planes do.
The whole global climate change craze doesn't just smell of hypocrisy to me; it stinks to high heavens. Frankly, if the left wants to become “carbon neutral,” maybe it should clean up its stench of hypocrisy first.

Nazism has a new face

Sixty years ago, fascism had a well-known face. Nazi Germany, its leader, Adolf Hitler, and the swastika symbol were much maligned at the time. Since then, groups have surfaced adopting the swastika and its association with Nazi ideology. We have come to know them as “Neo Nazis” and “Skinheads,” among other names.
But these groups are more or less fringe elements in the world today, and really don’t pose much of a threat. Most of them seem content to just keep to themselves and hole up in compounds located in isolated areas of the world.
Nazism today, though, has a new face. Instead of a swastika, the newest Nazis embrace the crescent moon. And rather than social fascism, these Nazis espouse militant Islam. Just as Hitler’s Nazi Party (a.k.a. National Socialist Party) set out to prove the dominance of the “master race,” Islamic Nazis have declared a holy war on the non-Muslim world in an effort to cleanse the earth of all infidels. And like the German Nazis, these new Nazis of Islam have aggressively taken their fight to all who stand in their way; simply leaving them alone will only hasten the spread of their extremist doctrine and fanatical agenda. What we do or don’t do in response to militant Islamic attacks has no bearing on their end goals. But how we respond can have a significant impact on whether or not this frightening movement achieves its objectives.
I’ve read blogs claiming that the Jews or George W. Bush and the republicans are responsible for 9/11; not Islamic terrorists. The movie “Fahrenheit 911” and its fat slob producer Michael Moore make this very assertion. I’ve also heard the leader of Iran state that the Holocaust was exaggerated. I’ve read other statements claiming that it didn’t happen at all.
Can you see what’s happening? There’s a movement afoot to undermine the efforts of the free world to combat and ultimately defeat militant Islam. There is also a movement intent on placing blame of 9/11 on the Jews.
Coincidentally, Adolf Hitler did the same thing when he took power in the early 1930s. Hitler assumed the helm of Germany on the heels of an economic depression the nation suffered following its debts from World War I. In order for the Nazis to take complete control of the government and its military, enough hysteria and hatred had to be created to convince the German public that a military takeover was necessary. Hitler’s efforts succeeded, and once in power, he proceeded to identify a scapegoat who would shoulder the blame for any problems that would come up during his dictatorship. That scapegoat was the Jews. They were blamed for everything from the 1920s depression to civil unrest in the streets.
History is well-documented with factual information pertaining to the concentration camps, death camps and the millions of people who were murdered by Hitler’s Nazis.
I have no doubt that if militant Islam ever had access to the same means Hitler had, millions of “infidels” would either be gassed or burned to death. There is an ethnic cleansing being planned by this regime; make no mistake about it.
Noted European philosopher George Santayana once expressed, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
If we do not wake up to the anti-Semitic and, quite frankly, pro-Islamic propaganda being generated these days over the Internet, in the newspaper, magazines, and on television, then we are doomed to witness a repeat of the Holocaust.
Perhaps most frightening about efforts to undermine the War on Terror is its appeal right here at home. To know that there are people like Michael Moore who buy into the convoluted theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy masterminded by President Bush is scary. That is about as absurd as suggesting FDR, not the Japanese, had his own navy bombed at Pearl Harbor in order to justify going to war against Hitler’s Germany. But those who believe this conspiracy theory are apt to believe even the Jews were responsible.
If you are one of these people who are gullible enough to believe that simply leaving Afghanistan and Iraq will end terrorism against the United States, or that “Fahrenheit 911” is fact and not propaganda, then I know of a bridge you can buy.
Fact: The terrorists have been attacking us on our soil since 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time. They attacked us without provocation on 9/11/01 and succeeded in murdering more than 3,000 innocent people. Our embassies overseas were also bombed multiple times pre-9/11. And don’t forget the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which also occurred prior to the attacks of 9/11/01. Interesting, isn’t it, that these attacks occurred following the Gulf War of 1991, when we booted Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and back to Baghdad. Still don’t believe Hussein and his Baath Party in Iraq had anything to do with militant Islamic terrorism? Just stop hating George Bush for a moment and think about it. You might surprise yourself.
Fact: Militant Islam has stated its objectives of destroying all non-Muslim people in the name of its god.
Fact: Militant Islam has even killed fellow Muslims who do not share its fanatical view or support its goals.
Fact: Militant Islam attacks its enemies regardless of whether the response is forceful or peaceful. As I said before, the end goals of Islamic Nazis are not affected by the action or inaction of its targets. We are merely a means to an end: Paradise and 72 virgins. They clearly do not care if their targets are men, women or children; old or young; rich or poor; sick or healthy; guilty or innocent. In their convoluted minds, all who do not believe as they do are guilty and condemned to death.
Given these facts, if we are going to die, wouldn’t it be better to die fighting than begging for mercy at the hands of the merciless?
By the way, did you know that the German Nazi Party was originally called the National Socialist Party? I guess fascism and socialism have more in common than we were told.

Shallow brooks for Hillary

There’s an old proverb that goes, “shallow brooks are noisy,” meaning that those who often talk too much also think too little about which they are speaking. It is a warning against those who speak before they think.
No offense to Hillary-backers with a brain, but a lot of the people I have heard speak out in support of Hillary Clinton for President seem pretty shallow to me.
During the Sean Hannity Show’s “Man on the Street” segment, Tuesday, July 3, 2007, I heard multiple people being interviewed at random say that they support Hillary because she’s a woman. No one gave any other reason for their support other than because Hillary is a woman. When asked if they’d support Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who is a woman, if she were running for President, those same people hem and hawed before finally saying they’d support Hillary; but they were unable to come up with a reason why. When asked to name one specific thing Hillary has done as a U.S. Senator from New York, nobody was able to cite an example.
Furthermore, the same people were asked to answer the following questions: “What do we celebrate on July 4, and why do we celebrate it?” “What war did we fight to win our independence?” “From whom did we win our independence?” and “Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?”
Answers varied from the Civil War to World War I, John Hancock, George Washington, France, “some place overseas,” and a lot of “I-don’t-knows.” To their credit, a few got some of the answers right; but this is basic elementary and junior high school history. Every one of these respondents said they support Hillary for President.
I feel bad for Hillary supporters who actually buy into her ideas, because these are not the people being heard in support of their candidate. Rather, it is the uninformed voter.
But perhaps that is how Hillary wants it. Maybe she would rather have a majority of uninformed voters elect her than be defeated at the polls with an informed electorate.
Who in their right mind would vote for a person solely because of physical appearance? Hillary’s gender may occupy the oval office, but it won’t govern. Would you rather have a White House occupant or somebody who actually governs from it? I put my money on the person, not their outer skin.
The same presumptions can be made about some of Barack Obama’s supporters, too. I wonder how many of them are voting for him simply because of his skin color?
I thought we were supposed to look beyond a person’s gender, skin color, ethnicity, religion and sexual preference, and instead measure his/her worth on the merits of his/her ideas?
Isn’t that what people like Hillary, Barack, the NAACP and the gals at NOW have been trying to hammer into our skulls since the 1960s? If so, then why are so many of Hillary and Barack supporters failing to do so? Why are they choosing to support a candidate on such trivial matters as gender and skin color?
If I, as a white guy, were to say that I am casting my vote for a white male candidate because he is white and male, then I am automatically branded a racist, sexist bigot.
But apparently it is okay for women to say they are voting for Hillary just because of her gender; or for a black American to say he/she is voting for Barack because he is black.
I don’t get the shallowness or the double standard. Do you?

Fairness Doctrine for sore losers

The people have spoken...this time. But make no mistake: the Fairness Doctrine is not dead. It is not going away. Those who have been trying to push this legislation through will try again; and again and again, if necessary.
Supporters of the legislation claim that the Fairness Doctrine does not prevent free speech, but rather allows for the expansion of speech by requiring that opposing views be heard on the air waves.
However, Article I of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the First Amendment, forbids Congress from making any law “abridging” the freedom of speech. To abridge, according to Merriam-Webster online, is to “reduce in scope,” “diminish” and “condense,” or shorten by omission. So, according to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is not allowed to make any law editing the freedom of speech.
Whether the Fairness Doctrine limits or expands the freedom of speech is up for debate. But the legislation proposed to change, edit or manipulate this right is unconstitutional, per the very language within the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Fairness Doctrine is not really about fairness at all. Rather, it’s little more than a temper tantrum thrown by the political left, which has not been able to compete very well with conservative talk radio. Proponents of the doctrine claim that it levels the playing field in an arena dominated by right-wing talk shows and their big business partner radio stations. What that really means in layman’s terms is that the left is trying to force its views on the public through government coercion.
Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine also claim that airwaves are public, and therefore, should be controlled by the government. Well, the air waves may indeed feature public access, but what travels through them is not. Much of what the air waves contain is private, copyrighted and ultimately protected by the Constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to privacy and the right to feel secure in our persons and property. The content of the Rush Limbaugh Show is private property; it is copyrighted. So are MTV, HBO, Howard Stern and even the now-defunct liberal Air America programs.
It is illegal to record these programs and re-broadcast without permission. That would be like dubbing a DVD and trying to re-sell it.
You might liken the air waves with air space. Although this is a public domain, the airlines that fly the friendly skies are private. If you aren’t happy with one airline, then you don’t fly with them anymore and you choose another airline. The government does not step in and require that all airlines be the same and please every customer. Each may offer something unique to attract and satisfy customers.
The same applies to our roads and highways. The surfaces are public, but the vehicles that use them are private. So it is with radio shows and programs using the air waves.
All private property is deeded from municipal, county, state and federal government as well. You wouldn’t want the government telling you what you can and cannot do on your own property, would you?
Lest we forget, the United States of America is a free-enterprise democracy, whose decisions are ultimately made by the people; either through petitions to the government (another Constitutional right), at the voting booth, or in the marketplace. If the people did not want conservative talk radio, then they would not tune in.
However, Rush Limbaugh consistently has 20 million or so listeners to his radio program. Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and other nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show hosts have impressive numbers that reach into the millions as well.
If the market weren’t strong for these shows, then they would not be carried by the radio stations, which are first and foremost, for-profit businesses that provide a product to the consumer in much the same way a retail store does. If a product is not selling, then the store will pull it from its shelves. But if a product is selling, then the store will continue to stock and sell it.
Conservative talk radio sells, so radio stations are stocking their shelves with it. Liberal talk radio does not sell very well, so radio stations are not stocking their shelves with it. If circumstances were reversed, then radio stations would be broadcasting liberal talk shows instead of conservative ones.
The marketplace is as much open to left-wing products as it is for the right-wing. Air America is an example of liberal efforts to try to sell its ideas. Unfortunately, much fewer people are buying this product as conservative ideas. That is why Air America sunk and conservative radio programs continue to float and thrive. It is really just as simple as that.
Besides, I really don’t see what the left has to complain about: You don’t see conservative talk shows on the major alphabet networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) or on NPR/PBS. In fact, there has been plenty of effort made by these networks over the last three or four decades to appeal to liberal, left-wing viewers and listeners. And NPR/PBS is PUBLIC broadcasting; meaning you and I pay for it whether we agree with its content or not. How fair is that?
In addition, the liberal left also has an iron grip in Hollywood, and a virtual monopoly on political expression in academia. The ranks of the entertainment industry and a vast majority of public universities and colleges are dominated with left-wing liberals, who are given free, tenured reign to express and advance their ideas/agendas on an impressionable crowd of fans, consumers and students. If this is not power, then I don’t know what is.
The bottom line here is that the liberal left does not want any competition whatsoever in the arena of ideas. It feels threatened by conservative points of view and the medium of talk radio as a forum for people to express themselves in opposition to left-wing concepts.
This sounds frighteningly reminiscent of current and past totalitarian-authoritarian efforts to suppress opposing political views through government intervention.
What the Fairness Doctrine would do is force a product on the marketplace that retailers are reluctant to sell, because they know that most consumers will not buy it. It is nothing more than left-wing propaganda being forced onto the people.
After all, why should the left compete when it can simply change the rules so it does not have to?

Common Sense or Common Currency?

The other morning I heard a news report on the radio of an 81-year-old man who is filing a lawsuit against Brut, the maker of men’s fragrance and shaving products.
The lawsuit alleges that the aftershave the man put on had ignited while on a camping trip. Consequently, the man suffered second and third-degree burns. The suit argues that the Brut aftershave the man was using did not have proper safety labels, warning that the product was flammable when exposed to heat and flame.
Since I have a bottle of Brut cologne in my medicine cabinet, I decided to check it out. I read the ingredients, among the first of which was alcohol. Furthermore, I could smell the alcohol contained in the cologne. It was pretty obvious. I looked at my aftershave, too, which was a brand other than Brut. This also contained an obvious amount of alcohol.
Frankly, I’ve known for years that men’s cologne and shaving products contain flammable ingredients, namely alcohol. Why, you ask? For the same reason we apply rubbing alcohol to the skin after we cut ourselves shaving. It stops the bleeding and helps to protect the skin against inflammation and irritation.
Now, I learned at an early age that alcohol was flammable. I used to watch my dad barbecue out on the back patio, pouring beer onto the meat. This caused the flames to get big. I asked my dad about it once. He said that the alcohol in beer is what makes fire grow bigger. I learned this fact, too, in elementary school science class. It is pretty rudimentary knowledge for those of us who passed the fifth grade.
Okay, maybe this 81-year-old man did not learn anything beyond the fourth grade or was asleep during science class; but I doubt it. Most of us don’t learn in school that alcohol is flammable. We either learn from experience, observation or just through common knowledge passed down to us from our folks and others.
The bottom line here is that knowing alcohol is flammable is common knowledge, and not exposing it to heat or an open flame is common sense.
Evidently, this guy had neither common knowledge nor common sense enough to stay away from his camp fire after applying his alcohol-based aftershave.
So, for lack of a better term, the burning question in my mind is, why should the Brut Company and the general public have to suffer for one man’s stupidity? Why should I have to pay a higher price for my Brut product because one man is suing the company for damages caused by his own ineptness?
I asked this same question of myself years ago after the infamous McDonald’s coffee fiasco, from which a woman sued the fast-food giant for selling hot coffee to her. The clumsy woman spilled the hot coffee on herself and suffered second-degree burns. Hello?! Hot coffee is supposed to be “hot.” That’s why it is called “hot coffee.” Why did McDonald’s have to pay for this woman’s clumsiness? Further, why did the rest of us, the consumers, have to pay for it with higher prices at the order window?
Remember the Ford truck incident, in which a man sued the domestic automaker for having faulty doors on its pickup trucks? Evidently, the man had been driving drunk. He failed to fasten his seat belt. When he lost control of his truck and it rolled, he was ejected out the driver’s side door and suffered grievous bodily injuries. Because of him, Ford and other automakers had to raise the cost of production, while the rest of us--again, the consumer--paid higher prices for the cars and trucks we wanted to buy.
After so many other ludicrous and asinine lawsuits, it isn’t any wonder that their only purpose is not to seek justice, but rather to net large cash rewards for the plaintiffs and their attorneys. Therein lies the rub: Lawyers.
Once a well-respected field, the legal profession has turned into a sideshow of sorts in recent decades. Two centuries ago, lawyers helped to forge a new nation by drafting our U.S. Constitution. One hundred and forty years ago, lawyers helped to set other men free by emphasizing equality in our nation’s laws.
However, somewhere along the line, lawyers were awarded the dubious moniker of “ambulance chaser.” I’m not sure where this expression came from, but I know why: When lawyers discovered the lucrative business of torts, they found a source of untapped and seemingly infinite wealth from which to draw; not unlike a mosquito that taps into a blood bank.
Take democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, for example. The guy just put the finishing touches on a 24,000-square-foot mansion on his South Carolina estate property. He didn’t cash in on a 401(k) for that. The funds for this lavish monument to himself came from his winnings as a trial lawyer.
Ever wonder why so many lawsuits are for astronomical amounts, into the tens and hundreds of millions? It is not so much the plaintiff as it is his lawyer, who convinces his client that his pain and suffering is really worth that amount. Make no mistake: It is not for the client’s gain as much as it is for the lawyer’s. Attorneys routinely collect 20 percent as a standard fee for their services. So, that’s 20 percent of $100K, which is about the price of a new car. Or, maybe 20 percent of $10 million, which is much more than the vast majority of people will ever see in their lifetimes.
Now, I did not intend to turn this into a lawyer roast. I recognize they do have their place in our society. And there are good, honest lawyers in practice. Yet, with so many frivolous, self-aggrandizing lawsuits out there, and so many companies paying out millions of dollars in settlements and/or damages to individuals and their lawyers, one cannot help but wonder where the priorities of the legal profession are. Is it really about justice, or the dollar bill? Evidence strongly suggests the latter.
What I really intended to write about was idiots and those of us who are forced to pay for them. But there really isn’t much more I can say on the subject, except that there are idiots born every minute. Lawyers know this, and flock to them like flies to a pile of dung. The sooner we can restore common sense and the idea of personal responsibility, the sooner lawyers will find that with fewer idiots, the pursuit of a fool’s errand is not worth their time or efforts. Then, perhaps they will return to the practice of real, substantive law instead of the sideshow known as torts.
Besides, I thought torts were something we ate for dessert. Wait a minute: to a lawyer, a tort is dessert.
Nonetheless, in today’s legal profession as in business, money talks and common sense walks.

What's wrong with being just an American?

The last time I filled out a job application, I came across the section where you check your race and ethnicity. Ordinarily, I check the box that says "other" and write in "American" on the blank line. But there wasn't an "other" option on the latest application, so I just left that part blank.
First of all, it is nobody's business but my own what my race and ethnicity are. Second, I don't want to give any employer an excuse to overlook my application just because I'm a white guy and they have Affirmative Action needs to fill. There aren't any racial brownie points for hiring me, after all.
In fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not protect me from discrimination in the workplace. If I am passed over for a job or promotion because I am not a minority, then my options for seeking justice are few and far between. Basically, I am expected to accept whatever decisions that are made, regardless of whether or not such decisions are just.
I recently completed a training class about discrimination in the workplace. I was told that there are certain protected groups who fall under the protection of the EEOC. Essentially, anyone who is not a white, Christian, heterosexual male under age 40 (WCHM-40) is protected. When I asked the facilitator what my options would be if I was disciminated against for being a WCHM-40, I was told, more or less, that I'm up a creek without a paddle. Since I am not a member of a protected group, I cannot file a complaint with the EEOC. I would have to hire a slick lawyer.
So, I ask: What is so fair about Affirmative Action (AA) and all of its residuals, including the EEOC? Sure, minorities benefit from such policies. But however just the AA was meant to be, it is not just if one group is benefited at the expense of another. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.
Now, I understand that a minority or member of a protected group may have a different perspective on this issue. I realize that I do not know what it is to be truly discriminated against. But is it right to discriminate against me in order to make right a wrong? Should I be discriminated against, so I can be made to appreciate what discrimination is? Frankly, I beg to differ.
It wouldn't have been right to enslave white people just to make a point of forcing others to experience what slavery was like for black slaves.
On the same token, forcing others to experience discrimination does not rectify the injustice of discrimination. All it does is fuel the fires of hatred and promotes racial inequality. All it does is help to swell the ranks of white supremacist groups and create other divisive groups among other races, such as the Black Panthers and La Raza (Spanish for "The Race"). Reverse discrimination does nothing to reconcile racial differences. Rather, it makes the contrasts more visual than ever.
What is the difference between hiring someone to fill a quota, and not hiring someone because of their skin color, gender or age? Both are fundamentally discrimination.
The burning question in my mind is, why can't Americans simply be regarded as Americans? It is obvious that white is white, black is black, brown is brown, etc. Some Americans are white, others are black, brown, red and yellow; some Americans are gay, others straight; some male, others female; some younger, some older; some Christian, others non-Christian; and so on and so forth.
As far as I'm concerned, there are no intrinsic differences between the skin colors. Do we really need to be recognized by a hyphen? What is the difference between an "African-American," "Mexican-American," "Asian-American," "Native-American," or "European-American"? Other than ancestry and the cultures of such, the only rudimentary difference is skin color.
There has been a movement called "multiculturalism," which seeks to celebrate all of the diverse variations in culture that different races bring to our society. Now, I admit that I enjoy trying food from different parts of the United States. There are also variations of dialect and social norms specific to different parts of the country; "Southern hospitality" and "Southern drawl," for example. However, such differences are not specific to race, but rather geography. A white citizen of Ethiopia is still expected to live as an Ethiopian. A brown citizen of Iceland is still expected to live as an Icelander.
To me, there is a distinction between celebrating geographical versus racial differences. At least the former does not emphasize skin color the way the latter does.
As exciting as cultural differences may be to some, these should not replace, dilute or supersede what it means to be an American. Frankly, I think it is more important to establish what being an "American" means, as opposed to a hyphenated American. What is a "Native American" anyway? Taking skin color out of the equation, the term would imply anyone born in America. That would make me a "Native American." But that is not how our government and popular culture see it. What they regard is skin color. Anyone with red skin, or a member of an American Indian tribe, is considered "Native American." This is misleading, not to mention insulting and demeaning to those of us who were born in America, but do not have the red skin.
Instead of hyphenating each other and focusing on our differences, perhaps what we ought to be doing to heal the wounds of racism in our country is to emphasize what we have in common.
I think our nation and our popular culture have made a mistake in embracing multiculturalism, Affirmative Action, and other racially motivated concepts that were really attempts to change the way people think. Another term for it is "brainwashing," but I digress that such terminology may be a bit harsh, albeit in truth.
Instead of trying to change people's minds, the way to heal racial wounds is to effect how a person thinks. There's a difference between influencing thought with information and forcing change through manipulation.
At least with the former, a person can choose whether or not to change his or her own mind. Using techniques of the latter is a fool's errand because real substantive change is not achieved; just on the surface.
By showing what we share, our commonalities, and that which binds us together as human beings and as a nation, people can see that there is no substantive difference between a white patriot, black patriot, brown, red or yellow patriots.
I say, give each person the freedom to change his or her own minds by providing them with the tools for positive change, instead of trying to force change through manipulation, such as laws that favor one group over another.
Discrimination of any kind that prevents equal opportunity is wrong, anti-American and goes against the very premise of our U.S. Constitution, which was written to preserve individual freedom and promote "the land of opportunity."
Opportunity: Now there's a term that sums up what it means to be an American. With opportunity, there is no guarantee of success; just the chance to achieve it. I think, in the end, that is all any color of the human race can ask for.

Welcome from Dagwood

Hello, everyone, and welcome to my blog site.

I'm a 33 y/o white guy, who is happily married and a father of three four-legged kids: two cats and a greyhound.

I affectionately nick-named my wife "Blondie" when we first met, so she reciprocated and, in turn, called me "Dagwood" after the character in the "Blondie" comic strip. It fits pretty well, too, because I like to eat (a lot, actually), I go to work via an office carpool, and I am always busy with honey-do's.

My blog site will be as diverse as a "dagwood" sandwich with everything on it! From politics to religion, philosophy, history, daily rants and raves, anecdotes, marriage and family issues, crime and punishment, celebrity roasts, movies, music, cars, pets, food, and a lot more than I can fit here.

My views can best be described as "Conservative Christian." My priorities are summed up as G.F.C., which stands for "God, Family, Country." Yeah, I'm one of those "Religious Righties," but this is who I am. So, reader be forewarned.

If you disagree with my views on the surface, or are prejudicially offended by anything "Christian" or "Conservative," then my blogs may not be for you. However, I invite people of all views to read my postings with an open mind. (I figure if the liberal left can ask for an open mind, then so can I.)

By the way: I caution anyone responding to my blogs. While I invite comments, I request that such replies remain intelligent, civil and respectful. I will write with civility and without intent to offend. I expect the same from responses to my posts. Any responses containing foul or inflammatory language, defamation, defecation or even childish name-calling will be immediately deleted, and the sender blocked from any future replies. Blog or Net rage will not be tolerated.

Presumably, we are all adults here, so let's behave as such. I will not abuse the privilege of posting on this blog site, so please do not abuse the privilege of responding to posts.

In short, be respectful. I subscribe to the philosophy of the "Golden Rule," or treating others the way I wish to be treated. If you want to be respected, then please be respectful.

Thank you very much for choosing to take the time and read my blogs.


Sincerely,


Dagwood