"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- JP Curran, 1790

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Guess what? Blagojevich is right!

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is accused of possiblly one of the most heinous of offenses in our political discourse: selling a Senate seat. If these allegations prove true, then he deserves to do jail time in my humble opinion. However, with his announcement today of his appointment of former Illinois AG Ron Burris to Pres-elect Obama's vacant senate seat, we once again see the Constitution threatened. No sooner than the embattled governor made the appointment, we heard that Sen. Reid and the raucus caucus of Democrats claim that they will not seat this man. Then we hear Rep. Bobby Bush (D-IL) make claims of racism against the Democratic party immediately after that!

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens in a lawless, pure democracy. Only current public sentiment, which is easily ignited by the mainstream press, gets any attention. Sen. Reid doesn't want his party even further tainted by scandals, as it has since it took power in 2006, and he'll trample on the Constitution to save his behind.

Opinions don't matter; the law does.

From our own US Constitution, Amendment 17 (which I have called to be repealed as it takes away powers from state legislatures to elect Senators):

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

That's simple enough. If there is a vacancy, it's up to the state to choose a successor. The legislature of that state has the authority unless they give that power to the chief executive (governor) of the state.

Illinois's Own Law on the Subject of Senate Vacancies:

(10 ILCS 5/25‑8) (from Ch. 46, par. 25‑8)
Sec. 25‑8. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress, at which time such vacancy shall be filled by election, and the senator so elected shall take office as soon thereafter as he shall receive his certificate of election.
(Source: Laws 1943, vol. 2, p. 1.)

Game over. Welcome Sen. Burris to the Congress. I don't like Blagojevich anymore than the next guy, but if the state of Illinois didn't like it, they should have impeached him immediately BEFORE he made an appointment. It's a moot point now, anyway. Maybe the rest of Illinois will come out in force in 2010 and get rid of some of their corrupt Democrats. Maybe they'll change their election laws to grant power to the legislature to appoint Senators to vacant seats. They can't do so after the fact, no ex post facto laws around here, thank you very much!

I really would like to see how far down his throat Sen. Reid will stick his own foot. It's just a curious thing for me personally. However, the danger is actually pretty great. As we throw out the Constitution by appointing members of the legislature who are ineligible for cabinet posts, we may also throw it out by allowing public opinion to override it once again by negating a sitting governor's right to appoint a Senator. Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 29, 2008

Where are you Alex P. Keaton?

Alex P. Keaton, where for art thou?

In a nostalgic moment, I recalled the uniquely entertaining and persuasive character Alex P. Keaton. Played by Michael J. Fox, Alex was a young energetic Conservative growing up in his suburban Ohio household amongst his hippy parents on the 1980's TV show Family Ties'.

Alex represented the youthful Conservative movement captivated by the Reagan aura. In the show he was cast as a dynamic against his Liberal parents to portray the changing reality in the U.S. in the 1980s. He represented Conservatism with intelligence, practicality, and logic to win the debate of ideas and policies over is fictional adversaries.

The thought of a similar youthful, smart, and cool Conservative as a central character in a TV series today is almost unthinkable. Today, I rarely see Conservative ideas portrayed as anything but ignorant, evil, deceitful, or just plain wrong in TV or movie characters. Few celebrities, cultural figures, athletes, etc. disclose themselves as Conservatives. For they know that it will hurt their career in the liberal dominated media.

Here are a couple links to sites with lists of Conservative-leaning celebrities that I hope you recognize and patronize. Some are more inclusive for specific comments or opinions of those on the list rather than disclosure of extensive Conservatism.

Even Alex has been twisted by contemporary editorials. They attempt to discredit him as an Conservative pop-culture icon by presuming he would not be all that Conservative or Republican today. Michael J. Fox himself even attempts to apply his current (more liberal) view of the world in criticism of Alex. Suggesting he would be in prison.

Which is why I ask the question "Where are you Alex P. Keaton?". Conservatives need you! We need a personality to carry our message. We need a persona to emphasize that liberal does not equal cool. We need people to be proud to be Conservative again.

Signing off...JCB

Sphere: Related Content

A historical guide to the future of Conservatism: Part 7

A conclusion of my series; A historical guide to the future of Conservatism.

Previous Parts:

Part 7: Conclusion and Summary

I began writing this series last month as means to analyze the recent history of elections, exit polls, and demographics to understand the future of Conservatism. After the defeat of 2008, it is important to reflect on the failures, look back, learn, and apply the lessons towards a new future. Conservatism will return to power, the question is how long it will take to get there, will it be a lasting return, what Principles and ideals will be held, and how will we get there.

Highlights of the Key Takeaways:

Through this analysis I have learned that although the numbers show only a slight difference in aggregate from 2004, the Conservative base has been eroding for some time. The 2008 election can be the match for Liberal dominance or the capstone of a long ascension to power. Conservatives have a choice. We can make this the peak as we start our new rise to power and their slow decline or we can ignore the signs and continue a disjointed assault while we continue to hold the minority in a Liberal Era.

It is gut check time for Conservatives. Now it the time to re-evaluate who we are, what we stand for, what we want to be, and who we allow to carry our banner. The Republican Party is a standard bearer of Conservatism, but it has strayed from the pasture. In 1992, the GOP learned this lesson and 2008 needs to serve as a reminder. This will take some time. We will fight for gains in 2010 and 2012. But, strategically we need to build a long-term majority rather than a dramatic short-lived ascension.

  • Let us work to clearly define our Principles and march towards those.
  • Let us rid ourselves of convenient victories that sacrifice the integrity of our Principles.
  • Let us assuage the people with intelligent and practical ideas and realistic application of our Principles.
  • Let us stand against the compromise, contradiction, or condemnation of our Principles.
  • Let us challenge our adversaries and win the tactical battles of this long war.

The future is ours to shape.

Signing off...JCB

Sphere: Related Content

John F. Kerry - "You gotta be smart."

Somalian pirates, muslim extremists of the high seas, have taken $100 million oil ships, civilians, and tons of ransom payments from willing governments. They are a threat to free society because we should not fear piracy when sailing the seas of this planet. Some people have acquiesced, given in, or pandered to the terrorists, while others are taking a more hardline stance. Even China is pondering military action against these terrorists in a move not seen since the 1500's. India has come out swinging against terrorism, of all kinds, and the United States is still leading the fight. We bear the brunt of the terrorist angst, we shoulder the target for them to aim at, and we carry the sword to strike them with. We are a nation of pioneers, and reluctant warriors. Always drawn into a conflict by a severe need, whether it be for our own freedom or for the free world, we have fought for what is right.

Then there are Senators.

Foxnews is reporting that John Kerry wants to hold hearings about the issue, because "you gotta be smart."

Sen. Kerry,

Here are a few smart options to consider...because I don't think the Pirates are going to come to your hearings.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 28, 2008

The Powder Keg and the Match

We will never have true justice in this world. If you're looking for justice, such a lofty and abstract concept as it is, you'll have to wait for the afterlife. All we can do is a rudimentary approximation, like so many things in life. We imperfectly worship God's perfection, we imperfectly pray for our own wishes, and we imperfectly seek justice and mercy. In Calculus we can use various rules (Taylor Series, Disk Method, etc) to approximate true values, along an infinite scale of possibilities. With greater advances in technology, we can quickly approximate with greater precision than ever before.

We war because we seek justice, but it would do us well to stand back and look at this from a more macro-perspective from time to time, as well. Hamas has broken their cease fire by shooting rockets into sovereign Israeli territory. How would we react? Probably much in the way Israel has, with bombing run after bombing run. What is sad is that Hamas insists on placing their military armaments in civilian areas, near schools, and markets in the hopes that their own civilians will be killed before a sea of public sympathy for their terrorist causes. Precision is not in the vocabulary of the Israeli military, at least not to the extent that we use it in the United States. They don't have much choice in this case. They have been attacked, and they must defend their citizens. It is the one true responsibility of all governments...to protect citizens.

Across the globe, we see Pakistani and Indian troops storming to their borders while claiming that there will be "no war." What isn't explicitly denied is implicitly permitted, and that's the attitude that the Indian government has taken with its stance towards Pakistan in the wake of terrorist attacks in their country. The last century saw three major wars between the two nations, but they never had nuclear weapons before. How tempting is it for developing nations, now firmly planted on the world's map, to use every weapon available to them once the bullets start flying?

One thing is for certain: we cannot tolerate terrorism in a free world. It's just too easy for bad guys to murder innocent people. There are only two possible solutions to this complicated problem. 1) end free society, or 2) eliminate the terrorists.

Although some nations and even some Americans would advocate #1, it's just not us, and it won't happen as long as we have some opposition to the liberal (fascist) ideologues in government. The only possible answer is #2.

Therein lies the problem.

How do we eliminate hundreds of thousands of people? We could drop bombs (nuclear and conventional) and kill a few million here or there, rather quickly. The costs would outweigh any benefits in that case, though.

We have to neutralize them. Make them meaningless and superfluous in the greater international community. To do that we have to say what we mean, and mean what we say. Our word is stronger than our military might, and that's saying something! If we say we will get something done, then let us do it! The Bay of Pigs invasion did more to harm our national posture than almost any other act in the 20th century. The country of liberators, the savior of Europe in the Great War and WWII, suddenly backed out against a small communist island nation, and left many to die and many more to suffer under decades of communism. A stern response, and the elimination of the Castro regime in the 1960s would have served us well in later years.

If we say that we will stand by Israel in their fight for safety and security, then we must stand by them. We can also stand by our pledge to bring peace and stability to "Palestinians" as well. We've called for an independent Palestinian state, and that's something that we should enforce, soon. We should have used military force to help Afghanistan in their fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, because we implied our support. In 1991, after our swift victory in Desert Storm, it would have been wise to push for a decapitation strike against the Hussein regime, which is something Iraqi citizens were ready for.

In a nutshell, we have to stop being reactionary, and going with the flow of international events. It seems that Congress and to a lesser extent the White House does not have a good finger on the pulse of international events, because they have both hands firmly grasping public opinion polls.

So the question remains of who is the powder keg, and who is the match. In some sense, all nations are a powder keg, and certain events (like terrorist attacks in Mumbai, D.C., NYC, Israel, and elsewhere) are the match. But you can also look at this another way. Free societies are a powder keg, full of power and free will. We simply do not tolerate others dictating our way of life, nor will we ever. Tyrants are the matches that set us off, but we do so in the name of justice.

"Collateral damage," poor public opinion, international outcries against 'aggression' and retaliation are all consequences of action. This we know for sure. However, what are the consequences for inaction? I think we learned that lesson on 9/11, and it's not something we should allow the world to repeat. Either way, we will only approximate justice. So let's get on with it. Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Targeting General Reid to maim the Senate Democrat army

This is not a new tactic in warfare or politics, take out a commanding general to render an army disjointed. It appears that Republicans will be targeting General, sorry Senator Reid the Democratic Majority Leader in the 2010 election. Having few other options for defeating any of the 13 sitting Democrat Senators (plus 3 vacant seats being filled (CO, IL, and NY), the Republicans are exacting a bit of revenge.

After Tom Daschle (SD) was defeated from his majority seat in 2002, the Democrats pursued Republican Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) in 2008. Mitch was successfully re-elected. There is a little back-and-forth here.

For those interested in a good read on the relationship between War and Politics, I highly recommend John J. Pitney, Jr.'s 'The Art of Political Warfare'. He eloquently draws the parallels in theory and practice of War and Politics through real life examples and figures. He reveals the personalities, thoughts, and sources of influence of some of the U.S.'s predominant political figures.

Enjoy the read! I'm rereading this one over the Holidays.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Kingston Fossil Plant spill is the beginning of the end for coal

In 15-20 years if someone will write an obituary for the U.S. Coal Industry, the Kingston Fossil Plant spill will signal the beginning of the end. Like 3 Mile Island for nuclear power, these images will be shown again and again as a means to kill coal.

Experts predict that in order for Obama to meet his ecologic goals in the next 10 years he will need to essentially kill the coal industry. Irony, before the election it was leaked that Obama has that very intention.

There are even expensive campaigns focused on "killing the canary" and energy diversification that clearly omits clean coal from the future investment.

Oh, and don't expect any type of industry rescue or bailout from this government, that is reserved for loyal constituents. Prepare for the worst Appalachia, its coming!!

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

A new round of Israeli-Hamas violence

If you read the morning news you would think that Israel was the aggressor of unprovoked air strikes on Gaza targeting harmless civilians. It took some searching for me to actually discover that the air strikes are in response to Hamas rocket attacks.

Amazingly, but not surprisingly the "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the Israeli air campaign was "criminal" and called for the international community to intervene.".

Is it criminal to defend one's country from attack? Would Abbas have preferred that they move in with ground forces in stead? No, he and the Arabs would prefer that Israel take the attacks without response.

If Canadian separatists were launching rockets and insurgent strikes from Toronto, do you think we would sit idly by? No!! And I don't expect Israel to either.

You can agree or disagree with the creation of the state of Israel and the controversies over land rights. But they have ever right to respond to these and other attacks on their sovereignty.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

You say that's capitalism, I say that's compromise

Make no doubt, there are renewed and fervent efforts by those emboldened by our current predicament who seek to destroy capitalist ideals.

I find it hysterical to read articles like this one, published by A. Huffington in which they attribute this downturn to economic ideologies of the Bush administration these past few years and call them "laissez-faire". She calls this laissez-faire! I call it compromising of free market Capitalism.

Now I assume Ms. Huffington is intelligent enough to know the difference between true laissez-faire and our current interventionist model. These are the subversive tactics being employed to associate the economic recession with Bush, with market-oriented principles, with deregulation, and with Capitalism (with a capital C). The goal is to associate these things with the plight and pessimism in order to vanquish the favor towards free enterprise from the American psyche.

This isn't new, this isn't unique. Rather, this is seen as a great opportunity to shift towards socialist ideals. You see, Ms. Huffington and her colleagues are the Balph Eubank and Bertram Scudders of this world. They enjoy the lavish lifestyles and quality of life that Capitalism and the defense of freedom through the ages has made available to them while bashing these principles in hopes that future generations will not have to bear the burden of choice.

They are misreading the heart of the American spirit.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Sweet Caroline, what has thou hidden?

Caroline Kennedy, will not disclose financial, tax, or really any other records of importance unless "chosen" as Senator of New York by Gov. Paterson.

She has certainly learned from the "Chosen One" that you can stonewall you way into power without disclosing information that might allow people to question you character.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Merry Christmas Taliban!!

Without question, this is the picture of the day!!

A group of British Marines in Afghanistan, participating in a carol service, were interrupted by Taliban gun fire. Quickly responding with suppressing fire and mortar rounds, they sustained zero casualties. The interesting aspect of the picture is that they responded with festive hats in tow. After the 45 minute skirmish concluded, they returned to the singing of carols and planned festivities. Maybe that will make some of you stop and appreciate what you have these next few days, rather than complain about traffic or weather or presents or family members.

Just think, some Taliban were probably injured or dying listening to the Marines sing 'Deck the Halls'! Brings a smile to my face!! Hoorah!

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 22, 2008

TARP: A Gigantic Bridge to Nowhere?

The "Bridge to Nowhere" approved federal project to spend an estimate $398 million on a bridge to connect Alaska's Gravina Island residents (approx. 50) to Ketchikan International Aiport was once upon a time the scandal of scandals in mis-appropriated federal funds.

My, how the times have changed...

The U.S. Treasury has shown an ineptitude only capable by a government organization in its issuance, administration, and reporting of the $700 BILLION bailout. Otherwise known as TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), the bailout was approved with roaring voices of oversight and accountability by Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

The sad, almost predictable, fact is that with almost half of the money issued ($350B) there is little known impact. The AP surveyed those who received large chunks of the issued $350B, and they basically got non-disclosure regurgitation and vague accounts.

I may be old fashioned but how did these firms justify the dollar amounts they received? To justify were there ROI discussions or deliverable terms and conditions or did they throw out a round number and Paulson's cronies wrote the check? It is amazing the unwillingness and probable inability to produce some semblance of order to how the money is being issued and spent.

On issuance:
  • What justification is used by firms to gain access to the funds?
  • Are there strategy investments the Treasury is targeting?
  • What are the terms for repayment?
  • Are there goals of any kind related to spending?

On spending:

  • Are the recipients accountable in any way to the Treasury to show spending?
  • Are the rewarded for extending credit?
  • Do they have any incentives to invest in specific sectors (i.e. foreclosure avoidance)?

OK, I'm getting dizzy staring into the great abyss. Maybe, just maybe, someday we will know how and if the money has been spent. Don't hold your breath!!

Signing off...JCB

Sphere: Related Content

Bubba's bankroll

It pays to discover, bribery is the means of change. From Blago to Bubba it sours my tongue that there will be no recourse for the festering bribery that is a cancer on U.S. politics. It has eaten glutinously, careful to stay just under the surface, as it has consumed the path to power and keepers of it.

The list is exhaustive: Rangel, Wilkerson, Clinton, Jefferson, Stevens, etc. Yet when it comes time to vote, these characteristics are reinforced. With Clinton revealing his 205,000 donors of the estimated $500 million for his library fund (yes, library fund), you have to ask yourself "What do the donors want in return?" It's basically a slush fund for "philanthropic" endeavors. On its face philanthropy is defined as 'altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons'. At its roots it is the redistribution of money according to power and influence. As an individualist, I reject philanthropic altruism as a false cover of innocence for those seeking to control morality.

"There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values?" -Ayn Rand

When the two co-exist in a single entity of authority, corruption will reign.

The NYPost provides the following graphic to depict some of his larger international donors and their possible intended motives. Is it really that illogical to ask why the Saudi's donated $25 million in state dollars? Breibart also has an article detailing domestic and foreign donors.

It is not surprising that Ethical opinion polls consistently rank politicians among the car salesmen, telemarketers, and IRS agents. All professions you would probably lie about when asked at a party "what do you do?". Here is a link to the Gallup poll of Honesty and Ethics by Profession.

Think about this the next time you are casting a ballot!!

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

My Letter to Rep. Lamborn, 5th District, Colorado

Rep. Lamborn,

Congratulations on your victory. You had support from my family during this election, as we all voted for you.

When I look at Colorado, a state that I've only recently moved to in the past year, I see a void. There is an embattled governor (a Democrat), and two out-going Senators. While Sen-elect Udall won his seat, and will replace our only Republican Senator, it appears that Sen. Salazar will take a cabinet post with Pres-elect Obama's Administration, leaving Gov. Ritter to choose any old liberal he sees fit.

For Republicans in Colorado, at least within the 5th district, you are the continuity.

As a staunch Conservative (which is not always synonymous with Republican unfortunately) I'd like to see a few bold initiatives from you and the party.

1) Term limits. Reduce the term that Representatives serve to 2. Four years in office is enough to get things done. If it's not, then perhaps it's time for a new voice anyway. One 6 year term for Senators is plenty. Let's end career politicians, and start getting some real leadership in Washington. If it's good enough for the President, it's good enough for Congress.

2) Control taxes. If it says "new tax" kill it. They will call you names, tell you "it's for the children" or come up with a variety of reasons to claim that increasing taxes is the right thing to do, but it is not.

3) Control spending. If we don't have it, and we're not under a Nazi invasion, don't spend it.

4) End extraneous government programs that bog down industry, create massive red tape, and appear only to exist for the sole purpose of existing. The Constitution is your guide. You will find a very clear mandate for limited action on behalf of the nation. Simply because we have more technology and more people than our founders did, doesn't mean that we should throw this document out.

5) Do not support the Pres-elect as he attempts to circumvent the Constitution. For example, Sen. Clinton is ineligible for a cabinet position this term. She must resign her Senate seat, and then be appointed during the next term because she was in office during an affirmative pay raise vote.

Conservatives don't exactly need a new way forward; they need to remember the old way. To sum up our 'new' necessary platform for victory in 2010 and beyond, you can say "freedom" or "liberty." People have become a dependent group, dependent on the government's good graces.

That is not America.

We crave freedom, at least many of us still do. I would prefer to start a business instantly, free to choose my products, my services, my employees, etc. I'd prefer not to have a million incessant regulations controlling everything from the alarm clock I wake up to, to the coffee I drink, to the mixture of gasoline I pump into my truck, to the mattress I sleep on.

It takes brave leadership to be a Congressman willing to put your fellow Washington politicians out of work. If you can do it, you could run for Governor of this state in 2010, and probably win. Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 21, 2008

All the King's Men Re-Appear

"The world begins to disappear,
the worst things come from inside here,
all the King's men reappear,
for Eggman, fallen off the wall
he'll never be together again..."
-- Counting Crows, Einstein on the Beach

Nothing is so vile in our culture as royalty and titles of nobility. For example, he may be Sir Paul McCartney in England, but he's just Paul McCartney here! Our founders were sick of monarchy, and they sought to change their lives for the better; they changed the world for the better as a consequence.

President Washington is quoted as saying, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." This warning has not been heeded in recent times, as people have fallen for the trap of false security at the expense of liberty. We now have a generation of men who believe that it's simply just fine to wait for the police to protect you, because they are the government! This is a simple analogy, but fitting. Imagine you are in your home, in bed with your spouse, finishing the last chapter of your latest Clancy novel. The children are asleep, tucked in securely under their blankets. Suddenly an intruder breaks into the front door. What do you do? If you're the type who believes government protects you, and is the end-all be-all of judgment, then you call 9-1-1, and wait. You may be waiting a while, though. If, however, you are sane (a minority in this country) you will do what I will do...grab your gun, and send the intruder to hell by "instantaneous lead poisoning" because you understand that the police don't prevent crime, they investigate crimes that have already been committed. Make their job a little easier, and take care of yourself.

This is the epitome of freedom.

You have the responsibility, and the right to defend yourself, and to do society a favor in the process.

Our founders did not set up a system of government that granted us rights. They merely acknowledged that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." The individual is not created by government, and therefore, cannot be controlled by government. We have set up a system of laws, checks and balances, and a common defense for our well-being, but this does not mean we should work for government.

Government works for us.

As we progress to a stronger and stronger central government in Washington, D.C. (just watch during the Obama Administration how this trend accelerates), we lose control over our daily lives. Sadly, we don't even have a tyrannical dictator forcibly taking those rights...the people are saying, "save us!" This strong central government increasingly resembles a monarchy, which at its core represents taking power from the people. Laws are silly to a King, because he'll just change them with a new decree. Pres-elect Obama has demonstrated his willingness to throw out our Constitution by appointing Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State, for example. She is not eligible, according to our Constitution, but we will hear a number of popular opinions about why she should be allowed to serve. Short of a Constitutional Amendment, she is not legally permitted to serve in that capacity, and the news media will inundate us with excuses and reasons why the rule is outdated, giving little regard to the fact that it's our Constitution that they call outdated. In the end, the Constitution will lose, and Clinton will be hailed as a great addition to the Obama team. The majority of Americans will simply fold and go along with the crimes against our government. The one man who is supposed to uphold the Constitution, will crumple it into the trash.

We have, for too long, simply folded and allowed government to expand, regardless of which party is in power. The one thing Republicans and Democrats agree on is the need to secure their own power over the people. Reagan was an exception to that rule, but we have not seen Reagan for quite some time in American politics. Government is a hindrance to success, prosperity, and freedom. Thomas Paine said, "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." Over the past century, Americans have allowed government to tax marriage, tax wages, control their freedom to come and go, purchase goods, grow food, and even raise their children in the name of progress.

In the movie, Death Wish, with Charles Bronson, there exists one of the greatest dialogues in 20th century films. After Bronson's character goes on a crime-stopping spree, killing muggers with extreme prejudice, he has a debate with his grown son.

"We're not pioneers anymore," his son-in-law says.
"What are we Jack?" responds Bronson. "If we're not pioneers, what have we become? What do you call people who, when they're faced with a condition of fear, do nothing about it--they just run and hide?"
"Civilized?" Jack offers.
Bronson shakes his head, "No."

God granted us freedom; we helped bring it to the world. As we move closer and closer to a strong central government the most special gift in God's creation, including life itself, is in danger.

These are not simply lofty philosophical ideas, to be debated in a classroom, with little substance. We can all do our part to shift the tide.


Vote to end taxes. Vote to put your city council out of work. Vote for a mayor who will reduce his or her own government budgets, reduce their payrolls, and end needless governing bodies that do everything from controlling the height of your grass to determining where you can get medical care.

Vote. Vote in primaries, because after that, you just get the R and the D, and R does not always mean Conservative, and D surely means defeat for liberty.

Vote. Vote in the elections, for people who will put themselves out of a job, in government. If I were running for the House, Senate, or any other state or local office, it would be my duty to put myself out of a job. The Constitutional mandates are not as expansive as government's desires. The two need to be realigned.

Vote. Vote to impose term limits on ALL government officials! Representatives can serve 2 terms, for a total of 4 years. Senators get one term, for 6 years. There are a lot of good people out there with leadership potential, but 95% re-election rates for sitting lawmakers essentially prohibits a fair representation.

They will call it fair, but it's nothing more than oppression to the greatest degree. It's time to be the fish that jumps out of the ocean, seeing the ocean is just part of the greater universe, not the universe. That's what our founders did. That is what we must do. Sphere: Related Content

Update on Minnesota Senate Race

As the Franken campaign has claimed since recounting began, the continue their claim of a narrow margin of votes post-recount. These claims got some legitimacy this week then for a moment the canvassing board, after counting only the Franken challenged ballots, had Franken up my almost 200 votes. That has since been reverse after the counting of the Coleman challenged ballots.

The Minnesota Secretary of States office (official results) has Coleman up by 215

The Star Tribune (educated projections) has Coleman up by 188

It is difficult to dissect what the campaign and newspaper estimates contain and do not contain. Therefore it is probably appropriate to stick with the SECSTATE count reporting.

In case you didn't pay attention last week.

The sage continues....

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 19, 2008

The Nepotism of Democrats

Change you can believe in? or Change you can inherit?

Caroline Kennedy is just another example of the nepotism in politics. It is sadly fascinating to see the hypocrisy of proclamations that the Democrats will break up the "business-as-usual". Really?

How? By appointing, sorry anointing successors to power? I get it, politics is a family business. But, this presumptive birthright to power sickens me. This isn't new but seems to be reaching an all time low. Teddy was just as unqualified to be a Senator as Caroline is today. When a former first lady and junior Senator is somehow the most experienced candidate from your party, you have to ask if there is a problem. When cousins are elected to the Senate in neighboring states in the same year, you have to ask if there is a problem. When a Senate seat is vacated and the first right of refusal goes to that Senators son, you have to ask if there is a problem. When a career philanthropist is "offered" a Senate seat because of her last name, you have to ask if there is a problem. There are thousands of examples.

Draw whatever comparisons you like, but is it really possible for someone to think that Caroline Kennedy is more qualified than Sarah Palin to hold any political office?

The Princess and the Pauper:
Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Off with her head!! Nobody questions the "Chosen One"

CNN Commentary from Campbell Brown, Obama should be more open to reporters. WHAT?? She has the audacity to question the chosen one? Off with her head!!!

Sphere: Related Content

Shark bite, Hoohaha!

They are hungry and starting to bite!! As I previously wrote, there is a certain gap between the expectations Barack has set and what he can deliver.

Victor Davis Hanson provides a historical reality to campaign rhetoric

Meanwhile the Gay leadership is biting back! They are upset with the selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Barack inauguration. Rick Warren is the head pastor of the Saddleback Church in California. An Evangelical who opposed Prop 8 in CA and has been more left-leaning than most Evangelical Christians, is an enemy of the gay rights movement. Others are calling it his first "big" political mistake.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Dem vs. Dem: NY Style

Its time for another edition of Dem vs. Dem

It is entertaining to watch the Democrats eat each other over the NY Senate seat. While advocates of Caroline Kennedy prop her up as the rightful "Heiress" to the thrown, her credibility is getting chopped off at the knees. Are they seriously questioning her experience for a Senate seat after all the work she has done as a "community organizer"??

You know Bill and Hill are somehow behind the assault against her. Remember, she was the one who convinced Teddy to endorse Obama as the next JFK early in the primaries when he needed it. Clintons don't forget. They, or people close to them, are surely supplying the axes for the gleeful wielding press. This is a War within the Democratic party between the Kennedy clan and Clinton clan. The Clinton's lost the election battle but not the war.

Who has the bigger gun??
Signing off...JCB
Sphere: Related Content

A historical guide to the future of Conservatism: Part 6

A continuation of my series; A historical guide to the future of Conservatism.

Previous Parts:
Part 6: Voting Patterns and Party ID
This part draws a comparison between political identification and party identification. Political Identification relates to your associations to "Conservative", "Liberal", "Moderate", or other definitions. Party Identification relates to your voting for a particular political party (i.e. Republican, Democrat, etc.). It is important to note the distinction.

I titled this series "A historical guide to the future of Conservatism", not Republicanism, not the Republican party. The Republican party is one vehicle with which to advance Conservative ideas and Principles. It is not the only vehicle, but certainly a critical path towards the realization of Conservative ideals in the recent past. There are of course other political parties, including segments of the Democratic party, that can and should be used to advance the cause. Outside of the political sphere, there exists many avenues that are often second-fiddle to many, but historically can claim a greater influence over the adoption and protection of Conservatism than the Republican party. For those asking what some of those might be, here is a short list: news media (yes they do exists), Internet (blogs like this), charitable organization, faith-based organization, the Chamber of Commerce, ARI, Cato, etc.

My point is that the Republican party is not our only path towards Conservative goals, but it is a vital to the execution of those goals. The U.S. is a 2 party political system. There are admirable independent parties, but other than in rare juxtapose elections, the field has been winnowed to 2 predominant players. Although they have changed in title, there will always be 2 competing parties representing the paradigms in our winner-take-all system. Those paradigms being the Liberal and Conservative ideologies. I don't foresee the death of either political vehicle (Republican & Democratic parties) in the near future so I urge the disheartened Conservative to not through the baby out with the bath water. If you are disgruntled with the Republican party as I am, take ownership of navigating it back towards the the true Conservative north. Don't sit idly by as the winds of change direct it aimlessly towards compromise. Conservatives are the navigators, the Captains the political figures, let us right the ship towards prominence. And through the unwilling Captains overboard!!

Before we get to the data, I want to point out that these categories follow the narrow linear view of the political spectrum based on Liberal & Conservative titles. It does not apply the secondary axis based on Authoritarianism and Libertarianism. For more on this and if you are interested to find our where you are on the Political Compass, go to http://www.politicalcompass.org/ and take their test. By international comparisons, the United States is "Centre-Right" politically. They have applied their questionnaire to historical figures and plotted them on the compass. Here are a couple of images of past leaders, current leaders, and US Presidential candidates in 2008.

By Political Identification:

These voters were broken down by their political identification:

Once again, the Moderate are the largest percentage in 2008 with 44% of voters not identifying themselves as Conservative or Liberal. Other than in 1980 and 1984, Democrats have won a larger percentage of the Moderate voters. Barack won Moderates by 21%, since 1976 only Clinton in 1996 won Moderates by a larger % with 24%. The Democrat numbers have been growing while the Republican numbers have been declining. Bush improved by 1% from 2000 to 2004, and then McCain dropped 6%. To my surprise, McCain, the Moderate champion, did worse with Moderates than Bush! Republicans obviously need to do better with Moderates to return the majority.

The voters who identified themselves as Liberal are 22% of the voting population. They overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama at 90%. Looking at the graph it is easy to see the polarization of Liberal voters and their swing away from the center. Ford and Reagan won +25% of Liberal voters, compared to McCain's 10%. This trend like all is reversible. Remember that these definitions are not as clear-cut as they may appear.

Despite the perception that we are becoming a liberal country, 34% of voters identified themselves as Conservative. After Bush recorded the highest margins of Conservative votes for Republicans be receiving 81% in 2000 and 84% in 2004, McCain only received 78% in 2008. Another 6% drop, similar to his decline among Moderates. It is notable that McCain secured 78% of Conservatives, which is higher than Reagan in 1980, but in a year that 90% of Liberals and and 60% of Moderates voted Democrat, it was just not enough. This is the core constituency for Republicans, given the polarization that exists for the foreseeable future, they will need +75-+80% of these voters.

For those questioning whether the country has turned dramatically more liberal, here is proof that it has not. Conservative voters outnumber Liberals 34% to 22%, a 12% margin. Although, Democrats won Moderate voters by a 21% margins, when you include the splits among Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats hold a 6% edge. Not a dramatic shift considering Bush held the same margins in 2004. Again, we are inter-mixing party and political identification. Republicans need to focus on holding a large % of Conservatives in this polarized world and capture a larger % of Moderates.

By Party Identification:

These voters were broken down by their party identification based on previous votes:

The voters that Previously voted Republican made up 46% of the voters and to no surprise, Obama won 17% of these voters. After Democrats won only 7% in 2000 and 9% in 2004, Obama doubled those numbers!! Clearly the disenchantment with Bush and tying McCain to Bush helped Obama. The voters that previously voted Republican that voted for Barack, made up 7.82% of the electorate, that is greater than his overall victory margin in the popular vote!! Republicans need to reverse this and get +90% of those who previously vote Republican to continue to vote that way.

Almost 10% less of the voting population Previously voted Democrat than Republican. Barack 89% of these voters, Kerry won 90% in 2004. Obama was able to hold these margins, which is significant. Republicans need to court and convert those who previously voted Democrat (similar to Reagan in 1980). Recent years they have sought to expand the base and voter turnout among existing constituents. Reagan's strategy of converting voters has the lasting impact on party dominance. Hopefully Obama hasn't began a similar swing of "Obama Republicans" that could affect Presidential elections for decades.

First-time Voters registered at 11% in 2008. Obama won 69% of these voters compared to McCain's 30%, that is a 39% margin!! Other than the converted Republicans, these first time voters are another reason that Barack won. Although 11% is not a dramatic increase from years past, the fact that Obama won such a large margin is. So there was not a dramatic surge of new voters in total, but rather a significant skew towards Obama. I credit his use of technology in making the his grassroots, get-out-the-vote machine more efficient.

Key Takeaways:
  • In these very polarized times, hold a large percentage of conservatives and win a greater than 40% of Moderates.
  • Reverse Obama's gains among those who previously voted Republican
  • Capture 15-20% of those who previously voted Democrat
  • Upgrade voter turnout efforts to narrow the gap to within 10% of the Democrats
coming soon... Part 7: Conclusion and Summary

Signing off...JCB

Source: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Car Czar, Drug Czar, what next?

As I wrote about previously, the Democrats are using bait and switch tactics to, I fear, expand the power and control of the Federal Government. The example I used was the call for more oversight of the auto-manufactures manifested in the idea of a Car Czar.

What concerns me is the abuse of such a position by a egregious ideologue intent on shaping the auto-industry to some predisposed outcome. You can see by recent news that this particular position's authority is expanding by the day. If they do make the mistake of bailing out the U.S.-based auto-makers, I hope there are defined terms for repayment, defined dates for renegotiated agreements, and specific Congressional oversight, administration, and issuance of the moneys.

My question is "what next?". What Czar-like authority will Obama and the Democrats appoint and build? Not one that will damage or question any of their constituents, I can assure you of that.

Think the auto-industry would have a shot at this time of hand-out in a Republican controlled Congress? It comes down to who your constituents are. Democrats have lived off of the coal miners votes in Appalachia for the past 65 years. They are about to part ways. Obama's desire to bankrupt the coal industry will likely happen in the next decade or two through the subsidizing of alternative fuels and exclusion of investment in clean coal. There won't be outrage or calls for a bailout of this industry, why? They are no longer voting Democrat religiously and with Obama they have a new strategy for victory.

You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. Good 'ol Boys!!

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 15, 2008

The Shoe Doesn't Fit

Yesterday the news media was showing repeated clips of an Egyptian journalist, Muntazar al-Zaidi, throwing his shoes at President Bush. We are now hearing of the jubilation in the Arab world over the shoes being thrown while OPEC has also declared its largest cut in production in the history of such practices. Notwithstanding the liberal commentary that is already jumping on the President for a "failed policy" in Iraq (leave it to major media outlets to call removing Saddam Hussein and putting in a Democratically-elected government a failure), there are some things Americans should take away from this.

1) In typical Muslim extremist fashion, Muntazar missed. All bark and no bite. He's lucky Bush didn't grab the shoe and proceed to beat him mercilessly. He's very lucky some American troops weren't standing next to him, either.

2) President's got reflexes!

3) President Bush remained cool under fire, quickly assessing the situation, and made the decision not to negatively impact his diplomatic visit to Iraq by the actions of an Egyptian 'journalist.'

4) People in Iraq are now free to express dissenting viewpoints, no matter how disgusting and ungrateful they may be. You're welcome. We won't hold our breath on the Christmas card.

To those in America who think this war was all for nothing, let me just remind of you of 3 simple facts. This is key to the reason why we have lost so many brave men and women, military and civilian during the course of this war to remove a dictatorship and install a democracy.

No democracy has ever attacked the United States.

Democracies rarely attack one another.

No two countries with a McDonald's Restaurant (with the sole exception of the Falklands conflict) have had a major war.

The United States was extremely fortunate to have wise founding fathers. They saw the problem with the way governments were run, and had been run everywhere up until their great "experiment." Greece and Rome had nothing on these guys. This country changed the world, for the better, and we continue to do so.

So go ahead OPEC, continue to cut production, falsely inflating your prices. You should soon come to a realization. We don't need your oil. It is convenient for our energy needs at this time, but that's fast becoming a thing of the past.

What if there was no America? ... Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 12, 2008

What is Bush thinking?

President Bush is considering using a portion of the $700B approved Bailout money to help the Big 3. Unbelievable!!

As Republican (and a few Democrats) Senators prepared to reject the bill passed by the House, after the UAW rejected the terms proposed by the GOP Senate Leadership. To my understanding, the approved bailout passed by the House included language that would require the UAW wages to be renegotiated to be more in-line with the other (profitable) U.S. auto-manufacturers. GOP Senators wanted a timetable to ensure that the agreement would take place within a reasonable time, the UAW response... No Way! Heisman! Bye-bye.

Well, if that isn't an indicator of their commitment to fundamental change required in the terms of the bailout agreement, what else? They obviously wanted to appear willing to consider change but would fight any concessions, that's the Union mentality. Commitment without accountability is an open door to subversion.

Of course, we get the usual attempt to vilify the GOP as Union killers. The GOP Senators need to sell the reason why they are opposing this, lack of accountability and commitment to correcting the problems.

Meanwhile, the President is hinting at working to pacify the inept? Huh? Why? If he thinks that helping the auto-makers & unions will be remembered positively, wrong! If he thinks that taking this action will help the economy and the perception that he helped bring us out of this downturn, wrong! Barack will get all of that credit.

Don't do it Mr. President. GM and Chrysler need Chapter 11.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Democrats using good old Bait & Switch tactics

For anyone who thinks that these bailouts will not nationalize in some way the private banking, auto, mortgage, etc. industries, think again!

As we hear calls for more "bailouts" to save these uncompetitive companies, we simultaneously hear Democrats clamoring for greater "oversight" of the issuing of the bailout money. It has even been suggested that we need a Car Czar.

Now I'm with all of you, there should be accountability for how the money is spent and who receives it. But I fear that the Republicans are oblivious to the bait & switch tactics at play. The Democrats are appealing to the reasonable conscience when requesting greater oversight. However, this power can be manipulated and abused.

Take the idea of a Car Czar:
  • Where does his or her authority end?
  • Is it solely in the administration of the money or does it extend to efficiency standards, labor contracts, product placement, green technology, etc.?
  • Even if limited to the money, what are the contractual terms governing issuance?
  • Can the Car Czar withhold bailout money from a car company that isn't meeting fuel efficiency targets or meeting union benefit demands?
  • Can the Car Czar set precedent across the entire U.S. auto-manufacturing industry or is he or she limited to the Big 3 under the Bailout agreement?
  • Can the Car Czar impose on other auto-manufacturers the uncompetitive labor requirements that the Big 3 have subjected themselves to?
  • Does the Car Czar have authority over import tariffs on foreign owned auto-manufacturers?
These are all questions that need to be asked when Democrats invoke oversight privileges. This may not be a revolution, but the slow coalescing of control over market independence. Government oversight in the hands of ideological soldiers spawns into nationalized control of industry, that's Socialism. It is up to those who oppose this future to keep them in check, challenge their expansion of power, and educate the public on the subversive goals of their actions.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Guilt by Association, Blagojevich fallout

With the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, the U.S. is once again getting exposed to the corrupt Chicago political machine. Blagojevich could very likely be the 4th IL governor convicted of a felony!! Don't get me started on the Daley clan.

Obama was able to coat his image with Teflon through the campaign. His opponents in the primary and general election never really got his past discrepancies to stick to him. Aided by a beloved media Obama ducked and weaved his questionable associations with Ayers, Wright, Rezcko, etc. All of that has not disappeared. Take a lesson from the Clintons Barack, your past is always looming, waiting for the day to re-emerge from the shadows when you least expect it and kill or maim your political ambitions.

While the U.S. Attorney was quick to cite that the Obama campaign and President-elect himself have not been associated directly with Blagojevich's conduct, yet! There will certainly be considerable damage to the Obama presidency and administration. Illinois politics is a tight circle of cronyism, even if not directly involved we will watch as many of those that Barack is bringing with him from Chi-town to be involved.

I'm not convinced that Obama or those very close to him have not been involved. ABCNews replays a FOXNews interview where Obama's senior campaign advisor, David Axelrod, states that Obama was speaking directly with the Gov. on candidates for his replacement. They are backpedaling hard on this. Unfortunately for them, this will be very difficult, even for them, to rewind.


This adds fuel to Rep. Boehner's strategy captured in a recent memo, in which he plans to highlight corruption among Democrats in the coming years as a way to strike at the foundation of their parties' revitalized brand. This is the tip of the iceberg. A word of caution, don't throw stones in a glass house. Boehner better make sure that the Republican house is clean too.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Gritz Blitz

As we move into minority party status, the Republican party is now squarely on defense. If you want an analogy of how we should proceed, look no further than the 1977 Falcons!

Sphere: Related Content

Blagojevich Arrested, Anyone Surprised?

Add your own caption! Sphere: Related Content

Freedom Under Attack (Again)

I don't know the specifics of this case, but it appears that an overzealous Ohio SWAT team has raided a rural Ohio family home because it is part of a food co-op. Reports are that on Dec 1, between about 11a.m. and 8p.m. that SWAT officers raided the home of the Stowers family with no word of the charges against them, no phone calls allowed, and guns trained on them INCLUDING CHILDREN.

Read the account here.

We still don't know what "crimes" the family is charged with. Selling food without a license, perhaps? I mean, let's be honest, it's definitely necessary to ensure that proper government officials give their blessing to any transaction involving something as serious to national security as food. If you don't detect my sarcasm, please go back to your government job, b/c you won't like my site.

This isn't about food. This is about independence. The Stowers family has decided to pursue a different path, and they doing the things that people have done in this nation for generations. They are daring to be self-sustaining! My grandfather told me a story about his youth. During the 1930's, smack in the middle of the great depression, one of the local businessmen in their small Georgia town would plant an entire field of turnip greens, offering them to the community. My grandfather recalls going there with his brother and sister while his mother picked enough turnips for a dinner meal. In an era where our nation had it's greatest struggle, people came together. They found inner strength with their faith, and they worked to make things better.

Today they would be arrested for crimes against the state today.

Would it be so bad to have government do only what it's constitutionally mandated to do? Are most citizens actually afraid of freedom, as government bureaucrats have taught them to be?

If this story is true, then Gov. Strickland (Ohio) should be ashamed of himself. I've heard nothing about this from the mainstream press, or from the governor's office. Perhaps he needs a few letters/emails to encourage him to action. Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 8, 2008

Czar you kidding me?

The United States is now entertaining an idea of government oversight over the Big 3 Automakers as part of a deal for emergency bailouts. The position has been quickly termed by the mainstream press as the "Car Czar." We've had "Drug Czars," "War Czars," and "Money Czars" as well as a few others in our American history, but they bear little resemblance to the Russian rulers dating back to 14th century. That's not for lack of wanting, though. Our mainstream press is simply gushing over Obama's "New New Deal" as they seek to solidify Democratic control over even more aspects of our daily lives.

What is it about people that makes them believe the government is somehow better equipped to handle their lives? In the Great Depression, we saw exorbitant spending by FDR, but little evidence of his policies exists that points to any economic recovery beyond entering World War II. That generation of Americans would take any job offered, and they would scrape what little they had to take care of necessities for their children. Today we have people singing that Obama's going to pay their mortgages, and put gas in their car in one city, while Congress is giddy to insert itself even more heavily into the free market to the extent that Detroit may be called the "Federal District of Detroit" before too much longer.

We've produced a nation of wimps, with over-obsessive government, to the point that I've actually witnessed people wait for permission to evacuate from a fire. Grown men stand idly by while an 80 year old WWII veteran is assaulted in one city, while other men trample over women and children to get an extra 15% off the red-sticker price at Wal-Mart. Now we have a nation that can't take responsibility for its own actions, like some spoiled rich kid, and begs mommy and daddy for a bailout loan with no solace, and no remorse for financial misdeeds, because they know it is coming anyway.

You and I are mommy and daddy, by the way.

It's time to tell your Senators and your Representative that you do not support bailing out failing companies with your own hard-earned tax dollars. Tell them to either bail all of us out, pay off our mortgages, and any debts that we may have incurred over time, as well. Heck, let's just create 1,000 new jobs at the Treasury Department and print off a quadrillion dollars and send checks to everyone while we're at it!

It's only our money...(that we don't have)...going to other people...(who don't deserve it) to solve (political) problems!

Find your 'leaders' here: www.senate.gov and www.house.gov and ask them where YOUR check is. Of course they can't do that, b/c you're not a union-run failing corporation. The government should no sooner cut checks to these companies than they should pay off anyone else's credit card balance. We need to take responsibility, but the government is unfortunately more concerned with using this economic situation as an opportunity to grab more power than any Czar from Russia's past could dream of.

It all comes down to freedom. Sphere: Related Content

Update: Obama Citizenship case NOT to be heard by Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the case challenging Barack Obama's citizenship eligibility to President. The case filed by Leo Donofrio in New Jersey also challenged the citizenship of 2 other Presidential candidates; John McCain and Roger Calero.

There is other litigation pending, including the Lafayette Hill, PA., however none will prevent him from becoming our next President.

As I wrote about earlier, I didn't think any of these cases had a chance at preventing his inauguration but rather helped to damage his squeaky reputation. Similar to the Left's attack on President Bush intelligence, it is now Obama's turn to fight for his persona. Early in the Bush Presidency it was suddenly "acceptable" that Presidents are no longer off-limits to comedians and petty humor. We'll see if the same courtesy is extended to Barack. Here are a few topics de jure...

My Obama Top 13

  1. He's not a U.S. Citizen
  2. He likes to give the Middle Finger
  3. Without a teleprompter, he's a stuttering buffoon
  4. He champions the word "um"
  5. He's a chain smoker
  6. He's secretly a Muslim
  7. He is unpatriotic & won't wear a Flag lapel pin
  8. He is Karl Marx reincarnate
  9. He is not Black. Half-black, raised by whites, and non-slavery heritage. Just ask Jesse J.
  10. He doesn't sweat
  11. He makes a reporters hearts' pitter-patter
  12. He wishes people would call him Barry
  13. He looks forward to the day when Michelle will let go of his ....... If Jesse Jackson doesn't get 'em first!

Signing off...JCB

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Minnesota Recount over, errrr NOT!

Well, the recounting is over, if you're a State Elections official. However, there are a lot of remaining undetermined ballots.

At the conclusion of the recount, the MN SECSTATE office shows Coleman with 687 vote margin compared to the 710 margin after election day. Once disputed precincts are included projections range from a Coleman 215 vote lead (Star Tribune) to a 4 vote Franken lead (Franken campaign).

Outstanding issues that challenge Coleman's lead:
  • 133 unaccounted Minneapolis ballots
  • 6,665 challenged ballots by the 2 campaigns
  • 1,000 absentee ballots that the Franken campaign claims were inappropriately rejected

The saga continues.

Signing off...JCB

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Obama Citizenship will be considered by Supreme Court on Friday

Another legal filing and the highest profile will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday. It is a case filed by Leo Donofrio against Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State.

This probably will not be heard by the Supreme Court but it continues to raise the doubts of his citizenship. Combined with questions of his patriotism and flag lapels, these accusations, even if false, serve to repay the liberal lefts' belittling portrayal of President Bush as a dufus.

Let us not forget their out-right hatred and mistreatment of an incoming President in 2000. They have successfully savaged Republican political figures as unintelligent, and therefore have convinced the public that Conservative ideals and policies are wrong, blunders, and uncool. As I have said many times, Conservatives need to prevent the Republican party from continuing the failed course of personality politics. Rather, to restore Conservatism, a bold, intelligent, articulate leaders is needed who can sell the ideas to the American voters.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Will Bruce Springsteen be able to sing Born in the USA?

Rumors and speculation points to an upcoming announcement that Bruce Springsteen will be performing at the Obama Presidential inauguration in January. During the campaign he was an regular campaign performer and even released a new song during the campaign, "Working on a Dream". He now appears to be working on releasing a full new album to coincide with the inauguration event in hopes to capitalize on publicity and boost turnout.

The question that needs to be asked is whether he can sing his classic song "Born in the USA". With pending legal filings from Alan Keyes over Barack's birth certificate and questions regarding his birth in the U.S., maybe it is only appropriate for him to sing it as a question "Born in the USA?".

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Article I, Section 6

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

So the question President-elect Obama has got to ask himself is "Is Sen. Clinton eligible to be Secretary of State?" By a normal reading of our law of the land, it would seem not! Of course, I concur that a President should be allowed, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint high officials of his (or her) choosing. Still, if the Constitution is in direct conflict with opinion (even the President's), then the Constitution wins out! Sphere: Related Content

Site Meter

Blog Archive