This is not the first time that I have tried to communicate with the Republican Party leadership about my view of their ineffective, indeed, one could say incompetent, approach to defeating the socialist wave that is rolling over our nation like a locust cloud.  My previous attempt was made as an earlier post on Two Cents' Worth, my Town Hall blog, entitled An Open Letter to Mr. Steele and the RNC.  But, they have clearly not taken heed of my sage advice, so I will try once, and only once, more.  The next attempt will be with my votes for (only) Conservative candidates in all future elections.  No exceptions!

“I don’t split the party into conservative or not” - Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman.

I think that is probably as truthful a statement as you will ever hear from Mr. Steele.  After watching the carefully choreographed actions and words of the RNC Chairman, I truly believe that he thinks that all Republicans are likely to back anyone who has an “R” by his name on the ballot.  The Republican Party, unlike the Democrat, no longer has the luxury of knowing that any and all policies and actions that the leadership embarks upon will be blindly supported by zombie-like party faithful.  A lot of us came to the Republican Party in the early Seventies, after helping elect the Bumbling Buffoon, Jimmy Carter, and getting our eyes opened to the fact that the Democrats were desperately working to destroy our rights and freedoms, indeed our very foundation of Government.

But, maybe you should, Mr. Steele!  Maybe you should.  Surely that would bring you to some appreciation that not all who classify themselves as Republican are going to buy into whatever the “party leadership” dictates to be right and proper.  It might even give you some clue about how strong your voting support is going to be in the coming elections, if you persist in assuming that we, the truly conservative element of your party’s unwashed masses, are as unsophisticated (or even stupid) as elitist Republicans keep painting us.

I am reminded of a wonderfully perceptive quote from Gilbert K. Chesterton, early-20th century English writer and philosopher:   “It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.”  One would think it impossible, but Mr. Chesterton must have had our contemporary Republican Party “movers and shakers” specifically in mind with that particular jewel of wisdom.

We know what the elites think that the solution is, don’t we?  It is simply winning the power back, no matter that the Constitution and conservative principles get prostituted in the process.  And, of course, the key to winning elections is to broaden the base, right?

The Republican establishment is increasingly becoming viewed, again by those of us who comprise your own unwashed masses, as aiding and abetting the dismantling of our constitutional framework, although with less screeching and outright treasonous intent than is inherent in the Democrats’ actions.  I am afraid that the RNC has a consistent record of not getting out in front on issues that are of real concern to those of us who still believe in limited government, individual rights and accountibility, and all other Constitutional protections.  Unless you start getting that message, sir, I believe that your party will never survive.  It should be increasingly evident, even to those who “can’t see the problem,” that many of us let ourselves be associated with your party only because we have previously viewed it as being the most viable option for staving off liberalism, but that the RNC’s policies and pronouncements now lead us to question whether you read from the same Constitution that we do.

So, I will give you a few examples of the problems that are causing you to be the architects of your own irrelevance:

• PROBLEM:  Your total lack of situational awareness in calling that socialist Republican in New York “statesmanlike” for withdrawing from the race, only to turn around and bury the Republican-supported hatchet in your backs.  At least Mr. Gingrich thought it was truly a good use of your funds.  We dummies thought it was pretty stupid.

•  PROBLEM:  Your overriding goal is to be in control in Washington, but nothing is done when Republicans are in control.  Do you remember that opportunity to reform Social Security?

• PROBLEM:  Republican bigwigs don’t want to take us back to the Constitution and its protection of individual rights and property.  No, you just want to beat Democrats, so you can determine who gets the spoils.
   
• PROBLEM:  You don’t believe us when we show, with our actions and our words, that we are not ever again going to accept and support liberal-lite candidates just because the Republican elitists feel that they can get an (R) in a congressional seat?
   
• PROBLEM:  You don’t believe that we will stay home rather than vote for such as John McCain again?  But, of course, we won’t stay home.  We will, instead, encourage those who can convince us that their love for, and belief in, the Constitution totally trumps any party designation to run as Independents, or Conservatives or even Libertarians, and we will throw our entire beings into supporting them, and we WILL VOTE FOR THEM.  Those of you in the “party leadership” will wail and gnash your teeth and proclaim that we are not smart enough to realize that the result will mean that Democrats will get elected.  

 One of your “distinguished” elitist mouthpieces, the self-absorbed Peggy Noonan, has already gone so far as to say, “The most sophisticated Americans, experienced in how the country works on the ground, can’t figure a way out.”   Of course, that's just a dried up old moderate trying to curry favoritism with the other elitists, and maybe scoring a few points with the libs. 

In the meantime, we unsophisticated types can figure a way out, and it starts with supporting candidates who think like us, and will fight for our way of life.

We have been lectured by no less than the formerly esteemed Newt Gingrich, by Texas Senator (very possibly a temporary position for him) John Cornyn, and by Michael Reagan (the son of Ronaldus Maximus himself) that we must vote for odious moderates (or worse) just so the Republican Party can ascend to the throne of power.

Well, read my lips!  I do not care if a Democrat wins a seat because I support conservatives rather than RINO’s.  It is more acceptable to have my ideological enemy tear down our country than a wolf in sheep's clothing..

Often, in order to define or understand some modern-day phenomenon, it is instructive to refer to the writings that have withstood the test of time.

It is hard to imagine a more appropriate and revealing application of that truism than the use of George Orwell's Animal Farm to illustrate what is going on in America today.  The parallels between Orwell's characters and the current elements of government, other political institutions, and assorted enablers are eerily and precisely striking.  It is almost as if Orwell was sitting at a keyboard only yesterday, writing about a  21st century farm, America, instead of at a typewriter in 1943-44, addressing the Russian Revolution of some ninety years ago.

Although it would be a highly interesting exercise to identify and thoroughly develop the 2009 characters, my intent is to only provide the definitive answer to an exercise generated by Bernard Goldberg a few days ago, namely, what the best name for today's media, which clearly no longer is reflective of main stream America.

Well, Mr. Goldberg, I submit for your consideration the term Squealer Incarnate, or Squealer for short, as the perfect name for the collective socialism enablers at NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.! etc.! etc.!

The evidence to support my recommendation follows in the form of character descriptions from two sources.  I have bold-ed the parts of their descriptions/summaries that I feel are particularly pertinent:

From *sparknotes :

"Squealer

Throughout his career, Orwell explored how politicians manipulate language in an age of mass media. In Animal Farm, the silver-tongued pig Squealer abuses language to justify Napoleon’s actions and policies to the proletariat by whatever means seem necessary. By radically simplifying language—as when he teaches the sheep to bleat “Four legs good, two legs better!”—he limits the terms of debate. By complicating language unnecessarily, he confuses and intimidates the uneducated, as when he explains that pigs, who are the “brainworkers” of the farm, consume milk and apples not for pleasure, but for the good of their comrades. In this latter strategy, he also employs jargon (“tactics, tactics”) as well as a baffling vocabulary of false and impenetrable statistics, engendering in the other animals both self-doubt and a sense of hopelessness about ever accessing the truth without the pigs’ mediation. Squealer’s lack of conscience and unwavering loyalty to his leader, alongside his rhetorical skills, make him the perfect propagandist for any tyranny. Squealer’s name also fits him well: squealing, of course, refers to a pig’s typical form of vocalization, and Squealer’s speech defines him. At the same time, to squeal also means to betray, aptly evoking Squealer’s behavior with regard to his fellow animals."

From:  GO Work : Summaries and  Interpretations : Animal Farm

"Squealer: Squealer is an intriguing character in Orwell's Animal Farm.  He's first described as a manipulator and persuader.  Orwell narrates, "He could turn black into white."  Many critics correlate Squealer with the Pravda, the Russian newspaper of the 1930's.  Propaganda was a key to many publications, and since their was no television or radio, the newspaper was the primary source of media information.  So the monopoly of the Pravda was seized by Stalin and his new Bolshevik regime.  In Animal Farm, Squealer, like the newspaper, is the link between Napoleon and other animals.  When Squealer masks an evil intention of the pigs, the intentions of the communists can be carried out with little resistance and without political disarray.  ..."

I suggest that every concerned American read Animal Farm, or at least go to one of these sites and brush up on what George Orwell was saying about totalitarian governments.

And start calling the "MSM" Squealer - it will get under their skin, I'll bet!

Have you seen this video of Fox's Meghan Kelly interviewing a Bank of America flack?  This was concerning the actions of a BoA branch manager in Gaffney, South Carolina, who removed American flags that were being placed, by a family friend, along the route of the funeral procession for Lance Corporal Christopher Fowlkes, a United States Marine who was killed in Afghanistan.  As I understand it, the reasons the manager gave were:  it was against bank policy and, some of their customers might be offended by the flags.

I deeply admire Meghan Kelly.  In fact, I think she is the best in the news part of the business.  She asks tough questions and routinely pushes for answers literally until the time allotted for an interview runs out.  Her style is decidedly different from the tendencies of many other Fox news personalities to pander to the interviewee after a good question or two.  I just wish she had drilled into this even further in nailing this BoA scum's hide to the wall.

The idiot that Bank of America sent out to do damage control very carefully kept to his talking points, even in the face of the fact that his points were, at best, poorly conceived, and at worst, reflective of a corporate policy of anti-Americanism.  But, maybe they just want to go along with Obama's view of where we should go as a nation.  After all, he does have America's interest at heart, right?  And, there will have to be banks, right?  Well, why not BoA?  They won't even need to change their name (except maybe to change the "c" to a "k").

I have a seething anger about this, because it was much more than dis-respecting the flag. One expects all leftists to do that. But, one would hope that some of them would have the decency to respect the dead, especially one who gave his precious life to protect the freedoms that allow them to be successful in their crass, greedy, stupid and insensitive politically correct behavior.   This was not the funeral of just another old white person trying to help Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd's belief that whites should step aside and allow blacks to move into power.  This was in honor of a United States Marine who died in the service of his country!  Who died to protect the right of BoA's idiot managers and smooth talking spokesmen to commit such despicable acts!  BoA is no better than the Associated Press creeps who, in the interest of either greed or propaganda, showed utter contempt for our military and their families just a couple of weeks ago in showing the death of Lance Corporal Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, in total disregard for the family's wishes.  Anything for money and political gain, huh, AP?

See if this litany of his vacuous BoA bromides, in response to Meghan's pointed questioning, makes you feel better about the unspeakable insult to Lance Corporal Fowlkes and his family and friends:  "gonna respect the family's privacy"; it shouldn't have happened; this doesn't represent any policy of the BoA; reiterated to our branch managers our policy; we encourage branches to fly the flag; not acceptable and people know that; should use better judgment, and a few more, just as empty of real meaning or understanding.  Man, you sure convinced me!

Obviously!  Obviously!  Obviously!  This guy may have set a record for the use of that shallow catchall word which in reality, just points out that, if it were so obvious, this mind-numblingly stupid incident would not have occurred in the first place.  Have you got that, BoA?

Also, I'm sorry to have to tell you that it is not so obvious that you care about anything other than damage control.  What is obvious is that BoA has failed to educate its spokesmen in the most important maxim of public relations:  that the most important thing is sincerity - once you learn to fake that, you've got it made!  This guy failed, not only through his over-use of callow attempts at deflection, but also in the fact that, in his remarks, he never acknowledged that this was a direct  insult to our Marine, but just kept insisting that there is no BoA corporate policy to dis-respect the flag. 

No corporate policy against the flag? Indeed! How about a corporate policy requiring allegiance to the flag as a condition of employment, with special emphasis on total support FOR THOSE WHO DEFEND OUR FLAG?

I am deeply ashamed to admit that my house mortgage and car note are held by this bunch of blowhard anti-American opportunists!  I am considering paying them both off immediately or re-financing through some other institution, and I vow to never deal with this bunch again!

How about you joining me?

This is re-posted from my blog not exceeding the limit

Having become more than a bit miffed at the poor treatment of one of my favorite columnists, Burt Prelutsky,  just because he dared to write about the real Islamo-fascist activities, I am seriously considering taking my talents(?) and leaving myself. 

I also have to admit that I was initially prodded into it by my daughter because she was seeing my frustration with the Town Hall approach.
 
So, I have started another blog, on the Blogger site, named "not exceeding the limit."  I have written my first post for that blog, entitled "Joe Wilson's Truth."  I think you will enjoy it and would certainly appreciate the audience.  Drop by, please!  I will also be posting my favorites from the Two Cents' Worth blog to the new one.  Have not decided if I want to do the same in reverse.

In case you are curious about the name, it comes from a quote from Elbert Hubbard, American writer, publisher, artist, and philosopher who died, along with his wife, in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915.  This is a great philosophy to live by:

"Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit."

I do not remember ever being particularly moved by anything Pat Buchanan said or wrote.  What little I do seem to remember leads me to the conclusion that the man is out to promote himself more than to further any particular philosophy.  It's not that I ignore him or turn the noise down or change the channel, as if he were a Clinton, Obama or Killer Kennedy.  With Buchanan, I try to listen, but just tune out after two or three minutes, since that is how long it takes for the self-promotion to kick in.  He is very similar in that way to the likes of Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly.  Each of these reminds me of the self-centered party goer who brings his own bottle of wine to the party, because whatever the host has is not good enough for him.

Actually (you may find this hard to believe, I suppose), the intent of this post is not to bash Mr. Buchanan per se, but to address a column by him, posted on Townhall.com, entitled Is America Coming Apart?  I did read this one through to the end because he occasionally writes something that is worth reading.  In this case, I have yet to decide what his purpose is for a piece like this.  The obvious choices would be:  he needs the money, to keep his name out there, or he was suffering from jet lag.  Otherwise, I can't see why he would expend any mental effort on such drivel because it has no meat on its bones.  In today's vernacular, it comes across as a fluff piece.

I mean, is there any question in your mind about whether America is coming apart?  Actually, after watching the antics of our congress and White House denizens this summer, I think the question would more accurately be "Is America Being Driven Apart."" 

It's not that any of his statements are necessarily wrong, but that that the totality is just so shallow, based as it is on comparing actions by the Right and Left to arrive at - nothing!  No hint is given as to what Mr. Buchanan's personal conclusion is.  That is, undoubtedly, a nice approach when the author intends to make one think, but there is nothing of substance to chew on in this article - the facts are what the facts are.

There is one aspect to this that I feel Mr. Buchanan could have addressed to actually salvage this piece and have a chance to influence some thought.  Instead, his approach leaves one to the inference that he believes that there is moral equivalence between the opposing positions in the examples used - it's just that people have differences of opinion. 

Well, there is a major difference between the positions described.  All one has to do is to ask the question "What are the opposing positions based on?"  The answer, of course, is that the positions of one side are generally based on the Constitution.

Some time ago, there was an article on The Belmont Club, entitled The last brother, about Kalid Sheik Mohammed and the specific terrorist-related information gained and "lessons good guys through the use of the interrogation techniques, notably waterboarding, used on him.

It was an interesting article, and I decided to post a comment that reflects, I feel sure, the single proposition that every opponent of interrogation should be required to answer while connected to a polygraph.  The response, or lack thereof, to my comment was underwhelming, to say the least.  As I was reminded again, most of the commentors to such blogs are well known to each other (a merry little band as it were) and, without fail, tend to spiral off into in-depth discussions of nothing related to the specific article.  No real harm there, other than reflecting a general lack of interest in serious questions, but it did remind me to be a little judicious about where to put my two cents' worth in.

Nevertheless, I still have received no feedback to my comment, so I repeat it here in the hope that someone else might have a thought on it:

"A most interesting and stimulating discussion. I can’t help but wonder, though, about the following scenario:

Let’s just say that our intelligence people picked up a rumor from a reliable source, and had it verified by another reliable source, that there was a terrorist attack (whether by Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh or Bill Ayers or whoever) planned that would be aimed specifically at the city that YOU or YOUR family lives in. Let’s further say that they had a person or two under surveillance or in their possession who were identified as very possibly being a part of that plot. Because of the short time period to respond, they can only evacuate half of the people in that area.

Who among us would then say “It is immoral and criminal to waterboard (or worse) to get what information they could from them?”"

How many of us, after watching the treatment of ordinary citizens in these town meetings, still believe that these Magnificent Idiots that were sent to Washington are there to serve us?  After seeing video of several such meetings, I never heard a straightforward attempt to answer a single question asked by the public (other than the softballs gently tossed to Obama, who even screwed those answers up).

Any true American has to be awed by the sight of ordinary citizens gathering their courage and walking into these town meetings with these almighty Senators and Representatives, knowing that they will be accused of being un-American, organized mobsters, and/or Nazis.   Knowing also that those wonderful champions of the little man are more than willing turn their government subsidized union thugs on them, not only at the meeting, but also that their homes and businesses may be targeted.  One must constantly remind oneself that these are the same congressional "representatives" who rushed back from Washington to gather input from their citizen bosses in order to figure how to best reflect the desires of those "folks from back home" in their deliberations. But, of course, that is not what they were doing.

It is clear that the representatives do not "need" input from these citizens.  They already know what they intend to do and do not want the citizens to question anything about it.  After all, more than one of these arrogant feces outlets said in so many words to the great unwashed:  "this is MY townhall meeting" or "you are MY constituents" or the most used answer "that is not in the bill" or my favorite "shut up and sit down, I will vote as I see fit."  I can't even begin to comprehend the gall it would require to stand up there and say that I hadn't even read the bill.

Can you imagine the response such arrogance would have received in the early years of our republic?  I can well imagine public floggings and some stock time for the antics we have seen from Obama the Racist, Pelosi the Idiot Queen, Milquetoast Reid, Sheila Jackson "Cell Phone" Lee , LLoyd Dogged, Arlene "Now, hold on a Minute" Spectre (wink) and scores of others who are equally guilty.  These "servants of the People" take themselves so seriously that they charge ordinary citizens (their bosses, remember?) with contempt of congress if they don't like something that the citizen says to them.  What is the old British saying about the world being turned upside down?

Well, I hereby propose that we establish a law against Aggravated Contempt of Citizenry! The punishment would be instant removal from Washington and permanent revocation of rights to ever return.  You know, we could turn this thing around in only a couple of weeks!

Where my head has been for the last few years I can only speculate, for, surely, the following  was widely reported by our trustworthy media several times over the decades since it occurred.  But, then, maybe not.

Ted Kennedy, that paragon of virtue (liberal style) did a lot of despicable things while he was wasting our precious oxygen for 77 years, most of them widely exposed yet overlooked/ignored/swept under the rug, or even held up as examples of great statesmanship. 

But Mark Levin, last night on his radio show, opened my eyes to the most sickening revelation yet about the sainted "Lyin' of The Senate," the man you would least likely to want your daughter to be offered a ride home with after a party.  Mr. Levin was discussing a KGB report posted on  Sweetness & Light about Kennedy offering to work (actually, to bring all the resources and influence that he could) with Andropov to help defeat President Reagan's efforts to bring the Soviet Union to its knees regarding nuclear deterrence in Europe.

Read the following excerpt from that report and tell me that this guy was not a full out traitor to his country.  It also strongly implicates Rebublican Mark Hatfield as available to participate.  Remember that this is a report prepared by the Committee on State Security of the USSR for Andropov:

"Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information."

That is your hero, liberals!  And you want ask me to mourn his death?  And you want me to forget all the socialist traps in Obamacare just because you think re-naming it for this traitor will influence me?  Maybe you can show me how the KGB was a part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

And all you Republicans who hasten to join in the parade of worshipers because he was such a charming person.  Is it that easy to ignore all the harm that he did to individuals, not to mention the country?  Do you really need the television time and the recognition by liberals as enablers?  You certainly didn't rush to the microphone to support your own president for the past 8 years.

The only right and proper thing is to expose his actions and revile his name forever.

Please go to Sweetness & Light for the full letter, which is actually an appendix from the book by Paul Kengor, entitled "The Crusader - Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."  This excerpt is but a small part of the total damn-ing evidence.

Well, I haven't heard it raised as a question and have not seen it addressed as one of the silly items in the Health Scare Bill, but I am wondering just how all of this is going to affect all those Long Term Care contracts that people have been paying premiums for over the years.
 
I'm sure that as soon as Otrauma and his Legion of Death appointees figure out that this has slipped through their fingers, they will quickly resolve that oversight!

that Obama is being straightforward when he looks into his teleprompter and proclaims that, if you are happy with your current private health insurance coverage, you will be able to keep it?  Before you let yourself be led down that path, you might want to read the following verbiage from page 15 of the proposed (and still unread by legislators) Government health control plan:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED INSURANCE OVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
       (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT. ---
               (A) IN GENERAL—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
               (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
       (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

The bottom line is:  If you have coverage under a private option insurance plan as of the day this piece of crap goes into effect (day 1 of Y1), you will be allowed to keep that coverage.  Sounds just like what The One says, doesn't it?  But there is a big message hidden in plain sight here.  They are hoping that we, the people, won't read this thing any more than those  legislators (who, by the way, get a huge salary and lots of "perks" for supposedly representing us).   I have this crazy right-wing idea that "representing us" means reading and understanding bills before they vote on them.

You have to do a little third grade logic to connect with the message, but I'll make it easy:  This says no new policyholders for those private companies as of that day, and that any term or condition that gets changed after that day will allow the shut down of that coverage (i.e., all covered persons will have to move to the so-called public option).  Now, how long do you think your insurance company can hold out in the face of:  initial defections to the ObamaNation plan, older customers dying off, and lack of ability to adapt coverages to changing needs.  These private companies will need to get funds from some place to provide coverage.  Guess what?  Higher premiums, which you can bet will be one of the terms which, if changed, will trigger the shutdown of that insurance plan.

A disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but that doesn't mean I rode in on a turnip truck.  I did develop, write, negotiate and administer multi-billion dollar contracts for major space system vehicles and systems for 25 years.   I can read, write and interpret government doublespeak with the best of them.

You have been warned!

There is no question that the saddest thing that I have witnessed in my 65 years on this earth is the situation that we are now facing  in the confirmation process for Sonia Sotomayor, the current nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. 

My simple view is that the Founding Fathers established and constructed the Supreme Court branch for the purpose of constraining the potential for excesses and human weaknesses which would cause the other branches to stray from the Constitution.  No matter how many left-wing crazies or right-wing crazies or moderate do-nothings populate the legislative and administrative branches, the judicial branch should ultimately bring them back to a constitutionally correct path.

It is there to assure that every citizen is protected from violations of the Constitution, not only from other citizens but also from the Government itself.  Inherent in this is that there should be no consideration given to the ethnicity, gender or economic circumstances of the parties appearing before the court - all should be presumed as having equal protection by the Court.  To allow such things to affect or determine the Court's decision is to, ultimately, deny equal protection under the law and remove the law as the basis for conducting our lives.  To allow biased views to affect their decisions is tantamount to increasing the rights of one party and decreasing the rights of the other party.  It then becomes a fact that compliance with the law is determined on factors other than the written laws and fundamental fairness.

To populate the Court with Justices who may have agendas different  than assurance of full and complete compliance with the Constitution is to make a mockery of the Court.  There are those who argue that a sitting President has the right to have his nominees to the Court confirmed by the Senate, almost without any question.  While there is no arguing that he has a right to to nominate whomever he wishes, it is the Senate's duty to determine whether a nominee meets the moral and ethical standards for appointment to the Court.

The current confirmation process would be laughable were it not so deadly serious for the future of our country,  Lies, evasion, obfuscation of the truth, and dereliction of duty are being practiced by all involved.  Sonia Sotomayor is clearly lying and evading truthful answers on matters that relate directly to her fitness for serving on the Court.  In her carefully worded way, she is doing nothing more or less than invoking the Fifth Amendment.  Should that be allowed for nominees to our Federal Courts?  Many of the Democrats, as well as a sitting Supreme Court Justice, are aiding and abetting her in doing that, and the Republicans are, oh, so carefully trying to avoid hurting anyone's feelings.  Of course, they all are ignoring the violations of ordinary citizens' rights that will occur in the future because the Justices will have more "empathy" for the other litigant.

I guess Sotomayor, due to her rich heritage and her wisdom and her history of actually getting some decisions right on the bench, has earned the right to lie and cheat her way onto the Supreme Court.  I can not give the same leeway to the political hacks that we have in the Senate, both Democrat and Republican.  This is too monumental a decision to be left in the hands of small-minded people.

Had the Founding Fathers been able to even conceive of the American people electing "leaders" with such smallness of mind, they surely would have placed term limitations on the legislators and an impeachment or recall process on the members of the Court for treason against the Constitution.  I guess they just could not think at such petty levels as we see today.

I think it is time to pursue the process of placing limitations on the terms of the fat cats in Washington, and for establishing some level of accountability for Supreme Court Justices.

But, what do I know?  I'm just a citizen.

The following is an excerpt from the July 15, 2009 Town Hall article by Michelle Malkin, entitled “Two Scientists, Two Standards.”

The rationality police in the newsroom have not, however, seen fit to print the rantings of a radical secular evangelist now serving as the White House "science czar." John Holdren, Obama's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, co-authored the innocuously titled "Ecoscience" in the 1970s with population control extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication FrontPage Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren's embrace of "compulsory abortion" for American women "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." In "Ecoscience," Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."

Johnson outlined the book's ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdren's stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren's defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.

There, you'll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation's water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. … No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."

Holdren's planetary regime would also breed out undesirables "who contribute to social deterioration" and "insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."

Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be "obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."

Now someone please explain to me that we shouldn’t be concerned that Obama is gathering around him all the scarier elements of Nazi-ism (as developed by Adolf and the Gang) and Communism (Soviet and Chinese style).

Lest you think I’m taking this out of context, you should go read the entire article at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/07/15/two_scientists,_two_standards?page=full&comments=true.

There you will also find that he has selected as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist! Now, why a geneticist? It may be a perfectly logical choice, but most can see why, in the light of historical perspective, there would be some concern about the reasons for the particular combination of talents that the Obama team is putting in place.

Or maybe I’m just another right-wing conspiracy theorist. What do you think?

I received a fund-raising e-mail from the Republican Party a couple of weeks ago, specifically attributed to, and signed by, Michael Steele, the RNC Chairman.  Now, that is not so surprising, as we all get these relatively harmless missives from time to time.   

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I very seldom read these things, and I haven’t, to the best of my memory, ever sent any money to the RNC, either in response to one of these letters or any other request.  You see, I happen to believe that the RNC has no business taking our money and shoveling it like so much fertilizer to the candidates or groups that they (the NRC) choose to support (fairly analogous to what the Government does with our taxes, I guess).  They apparently base their selections on perceived electability as an (R), regardless of whether those candidates are aware of, let alone strong advocates for, the conservative values that the Republican Party theoretically stands for (and that I definitely stand for!). 

Tell me if I am wrong, but did the RNC not strongly back Arlen Specter (spit!) in his last election?  Heck, even all the way down here in Texas, one could see that he has been a traitor to conservative values for several years now. Could those smart cookies at the RNC not see such an obvious thing, or did they not care because he was electable as an (R)?  Either way, they rank right up there with the Government on the list of organizations to which I am willing to hand my money for re-distribution.  At least with the RNC, I can make the decision to exercise a choice without being hounded by the law.

But I did read this one, mainly because Mr. Steele had piqued my interest by showing a little backbone a week or so ago and I thought that we might actually be seeing some real conservative leadership.  Alas, I was fated to reinforce my developing view that the Republican Party and I have almost nothing in common anymore. 

The talking points that were addressed in this email were predictable and, frankly, insulting to the (presumed) target audience.  The only positive aspect was that they didn’t point out how smart Obama supposedly is, even though the evidence seems to suggest that he reads a teleprompter very well (an admirable talent, for sure) but in no way takes those words and converts them into coherent, logical thoughts.  I am struck by the similarity between logical thought/Obama’s teleprompter and logical thought/authors of this email.

Mr. Steele, you say that “last year the Democrats told voters they would bring "change" to Washington, but their version of change has been to push America to the left farther and faster than I think anyone could have imagined,” and assert that that is why you believe America needs the Republican Party now more than ever before.  Are you kidding me? I am sorry, sir, to have to tell you that a lot of us not only imagined, but clearly understood, just how far and fast it would be done.  We just weren’t able to get it through to the “bright” guys who happen to have control of the reins.

You say that “some people who were willing to take Barack Obama at his word when he campaigned as a reasonable, moderate candidate are coming to realize the unfortunate truth.”  Why did you guys not find a way to get the message out about the lies Obama was telling while he was telling them? It is a little late now!

Come to think of it, where were you  when the MSM and the piddle-head Republicans were bashing Sarah Palin during this election you were so concerned about?  Oh, yeah!  I forgot!  Many of those cats were right in the middle of it!

Also, I will believe that you supported the Tea Parties as a “groundswell of popular grassroots opposition” when you can show me that you or your personal representatives helped to develop, fund and advertise them. Until then, I will continue to believe that you are just using the obvious popularity of those efforts to try to hang your fund-raising hat on.  That's another one of those things that we "dummies" can readily recognize -  the difference between sincerity and BS.

And this thing about chiding the Dimmocrats about lack of fiscal responsibility:  What a joke that is!  Have you paid any attention at all to the pork-grabbing, as well as other waste and fraud perpetuated by your Republican buddies?

If this was viewed on high as a stirring call to arms of the Republican proletariat (i.e. those of us whose opinions do not count, but whose votes and money are needed), I would suggest that your viewing device, like the Hubble telescope once did, needs a replacement lens.  Polish it with liberal doses of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Burt Prelutsky, Michelle Malkin, as well as many others who "get it."  Maybe if you actually listen to Rush and Laura and Glenn Beck and even Lou Dobbs, you might get some idea of what we stand for.  Instead, you try to gain favor with the press by taking potshots at those who reflect our real feelings.

Don’t waste your paper or band-width asking for money from me.  I will be looking to vote for and support the party that has a ticket of Thomas Sowell and Sarah Palin, or philosophical equivalents.  I’m willing to bet that you and the powers-that-be of the Republican Party can’t even imagine why I feel that way, and very likely do not care.

Trust me!  That has become a mutual feeling.

I have never been a fan of the Saturn automobile line – lack of headroom and legroom having more to do with that than any aversion to the brand.  Nevertheless, I salute Roger Penske and wish him the absolute best in his effort to inject some sanity into this whirling dervish of socialism unleashed.

What we need now is for more of the Penske and Ford approach to managing business affairs (and not just the car business, either).  However, my cynicism (about what Obama and the congressional troglodytes are willing and anxious to do to productive Americans) has reached the level at which I suspect there will soon be a Master of Capitalism Control position created by His Obama-ness.  Reid, Pelosi and the gutless RINO's will, of course, provide ample funding and vacuous verbiage in their continuing effort to bask in The Glow.

Do you really think that Obama and the troglodytes can, or will, allow any capitalistic efforts to succeed against their state-run “Lada mills”?   From Wikipedia (with links removed): 

The original Lada was a basic car, lacking in most luxuries expected in cars of its time and was patterned after the Fiat 124. Ladas were available in several Western countries during the 1970s and 1980s, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, though trade sanctions banned their export to the United States. Sales to Italy were forbidden by the agreement between the Soviet government and Fiat, to protect Fiat from cheap imports in its home market. Imports to Spain were also prohibited because the local Fiat subsidiary, SEAT, built a version of the same car.

Eerily familiar, isn’t it?  Fiat, low quality vehicles, trade sanctions, suppression of competition.  One wonders if Obama and his Socialist buddies are putting life to the old saying about taking over (literally, in this case) by “Fiat.”

If you are not afraid for our country’s future, it is because you are either:  totally ignorant of the depths to which these people are willing to take us (inexcusable if you can read and/or think for yourself), incapable of understanding what is really going on (understandable, but sad), or a willing and fervent supporter of the planned destruction of the greatest country in the history of mankind (in my mind, this defines the most insidious form of treason).

 

How can anyone with a brain have voted for this socialist administration?  Even more incomprehensible is how they can continue to worship Obama after seeing, in only 100 days, his plan and capacity for damage to our country.

They are in awe, giggling like schoolgirls, as they watch him fire that nasty old CEO of GM, never contemplating that we just got on a slippery slope to a point where the government will determine every aspect of our lives.  Do you really think, once these statists (as Mark Levin has so eloquently branded them) get in full swing, that they are going to concentrate on developing new video games, cars designed for comfort and convenience, new medicines to prolong your life, or other such foolish notions?  Do you think they are going to make sure we have a good national defense to keep at bay the despots of the world, who just happen to have the same philosophy that they do?  Sure they will, because we all want what's good for America, right?

If you think these guys want to do something to make life better for the little guy,  just ask yourself one question:  Instead of taking this $2-3 trillion porkulus and using it to take over private enterprises, why didn't they just send you, and every other American (man, woman and child), a check for $10,000 and let you use it to alleviate personal concerns or debts?  That would not be right, either, but I guarantee that a lot more stimulating would have occurred!  A hint:  they think they know how to spend our money better than we do.

I predict that, 10 or so years from now, a lot of formerly free Americans are going to be mumbling to themselves, "Why did they let this happen?"  Some will even understand that it is not they, but we, who let it happen.  It will, of course, be a crime against the state to say such things aloud.