That headline is obviously not true. Unless you live in Santa Cruz California and attend the City Council meetings to put your point of view into the public domain.

You have to see this video from YouTube! You have to. Perhaps it will shine a little light onto the reasons why I just can't embrace the Socialist Democrats' point of view.

This is all over the Internet and has been getting play on radio stations too. And it should!

I believe in slavery because I live on the East Coast?

Is this woman serious?

Is she a product of the public school system? Has she gone to college? Where? Where do people like her come from? Obviously not the East Coast!

I guess no one told the speaker in this video that about 400,000 white, male East Coasters died fighting to eliminate slavery.

More than 15,000 soldiers came from California and more than 500 Californians died fighting in the east. In the war that ended slavery! In the East.

Including the coastal states.

God help us!

If you are going to "rue" the use of certain words in the English language, as President Obama now says he "rues" the use of the word "stupidly" when he was talking about the Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Department, you might also rue the use of the word "calibrate" when speaking of that incident.

To recap, Cambridge police were dispatched to a home near Harvard University last week, after receiving a complaint that two men were breaking into it. But the police became embroiled in a nationwide controversy when the resident, who was breaking into his own house, called police Sgt. James Crowley a racist and went on a public rant.

Crowley eventually arrested Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. The professor is black, and the police sergeant is white.

The news media opted to not report that other police on the scene included a black man and an Hispanic man. Why screw up a good story with some pertinent facts?

The police report says that Sgt. Crowley was the first officer on the scene, and he was told by a witness on the sidewalk that she had seen two men trying to force open the door of the residence. Crowley looked through a window into the entrance foyer where he saw a man, whom he then asked for identification.

The man was Professor Gates who immediately accused Crowley of questioning him because he is black. Then, according to police, Gates also screamed "You don't know who you're messing with!"

(I thought Harvard professors knew better than to end a sentence with a preposition! You would expect a highly educated, noted professor, obviously a first-tier spokesman and the public face of the university itself to say "You don't know with whom you are messing!")

Crowley eventually convinced Gates to show him his Harvard University identity card and called headquarters to ask that university police also respond. According to the incident report, Crowley asked Gates to accompany him outside to the porch because Gates was so loud that Crowley couldn't hear the dispatcher on his radio.

Outside there were additional Cambridge police, university police and several passersby. Gates continued to scream "This is what happens to a black man in America," at the police, until he finally was arrested for disorderly conduct.

After the incident hit the news, Obama, who shouldn't have commented on it at all, but just so happens to be a friend of Henry Gates, admitted that he did not know all the facts of the case, but nonetheless said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly."

He also made some additional comments about the state of race relations in America, essentially supporting what Gates was screaming at Crowley - "This is what happens to a black man in America" - adding that Hispanics in America also are treated badly by the police.

Apparently virtually all police in America are white racists.

The news media seems to have lost the clip of Obama's additional comments, but I would like to point out that if the local police were called to my home on a report of a burglary in progress, and I acted the way Henry Gates acted, their response also could be classified as "This is what happens to a white man in America."

But it was the "acted stupidly" comment that caused an uproar of Biblical proportions throughout the country, especially among police of all races, colors, creeds and nationalities.

Massachusetts law enforcement officials said Friday that they deeply resent the suggestion that race played a role in the arrest, and asked Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick to apologize for comments union leaders called insulting.

Patrick, who also is buddies with Gates, called the arrest "every black man's nightmare."

Nonetheless, Cambridge police Sgt. Leon Lashley, who is black, and was at the home with Crowley during the incident said, "I know what (Crowley) did and I support what he did 100 percent." Kind of hard to get around that little tidbit, isn't it.

However, The Chosen One, who can not admit to making a mistake because it wouldn't fit his image of infallibility, said instead, "In my choice of words, I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically, and I could have calibrated those words differently."

"Gave the impression?" No, he didn't give the impression. He maligned both the police department and the officer. Period.

And Calibrated? What does he mean by Calibrated?

To calibrate something - and I say this as a one-time highly trained Avionics technician, with a degree in Electrical Engineering, who calibrated many, many instruments and electronic systems over the years - you can only calibrate something that is variable.

By that I mean, if you have an instrument that gives you a wide range of readings, say a speedometer that goes from zero to 100, you have to make sure it is reading zero when the vehicle is standing still, and you should really be doing 100 when it says 100. It also must give accurate readings at every point in between.

So, using a series of known factors, such as input test voltages that give a known result - a specific miles per hour reading - you can adjust or "calibrate" the instrument or system to ensure it is giving a proper readout, indication or function.

Exactly how does that fit in with the President of the United States saying Cambridge, Massachusetts police acted "stupidly?"

From the Merriam Webster online dictionary:
stu-pid
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, to be numb, be astonished
Date:1541
1 a: slow of mind : obtuse b: given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

You can't calibrate the word stupid. You may not necessarily be smart, but if someone says you are stupid, everyone knows exactly what it means. The only permissible degrees of variation come when comparing one stupid person to another stupid person. They are still stupid, and that is just plain dumb.

When the president said he should have "calibrated" his words differently, he also remarked that, "I have to say I'm surprised at the controversy," but never actually apologized.

Other people weren't all that surprised that Obama inflamed this controversy, and many have noted that he has neither apologized for his comments, nor calmed things down.

For instance, journalist Brit Hume, on Fox News Sunday said, "This president who travels the world apologizing for his country couldn't bring himself to apologize. ... I don't think he got the job done."

Well said, Brit, neither do I.

On the same show, editor, columnist and commentator Bill Kristol said Obama did what he did, and said what he said, because "He (Obama) is an arrogant man. He can't bring himself to say he said something stupid."

And consider this commentary from Juan Williams, also on Fox News Sunday. Williams noted that while 70 percent of black Americans think the police were wrong and Obama was right, (a troubling figure, regardless of this issue) conversely that means that nearly one third of black Americans think the president acted inappropriately.

This is significant because polls after the election said that something in the neighborhood of 95 percent of black voters voted for Obama. That means he is losing major support within his core constituency - at least on this issue - even as his popularity and job approval numbers across other demographics are dropping like rocks.

We have to ask ourselves just what it means that a man who is trying to ram through a grossly expensive, horribly mangled "universal health care" plan that by its nature would put senior citizens on the short list for the obituary pages, inflames an already volatile situation, and then complains that no one is paying attention to his programs.

Many people of all races are seeing Obama's commentary as racist in itself, and now have him solidly in the Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Henry Gates camp that makes a lucrative business of perpetrating racial hostilities in America.

And throwing around an invitation to have a beer, even though Crowley reportedly made the offer first, isn't going to change many minds.

There may be some good news out of this incident though. As previously noted, Gates repeatedly told the police "You don't know who you're messing with."

That obviously has changed. Now, the majority of people in America know exactly who Gates is, and with whom the Cambridge police were "messing."

Unfortunately for Gates, Obama, and Harvard University, most of us are not impressed.

A new public opinion poll from Quinnipiac University shows that despite raising gazillions of dollars from out-of-state special interests, Connecticut voters still don't trust Sen. Chris Dodd any more than they did before he had the money.

Or should I say, before he spent the money.

News reports on the poll said that Despite a steady stream of television ads over the past six weeks - out of a total advertising expenditure of nearly three-quarter of a million dollars - highlighting what are referred to as Dodd's recent "accomplishments" he still faces the fact that 55 percent of those polled say he is not "honest and trustworthy."

Jay Howser, Dodd's campaign manager, declined to comment at first and then said something along the lines of Dodd is working on our behalf, etc. etc. I guess he didn't have much to say.

Which just goes to show that money can't buy you love, and it can't restore your name either. At least, not the amount that Dodd has spent so far, which means he is going to need a lot more money and he is going to have to spend it with incredible effectiveness if he is going to have any chance at catching Republican challenger Rob Simmons.

The Quinnipiac poll has Simmons maintaining a solid lead, 48 to 39 percent over Dodd, although Dodd would do far better if he were to run against two other Republicans who are campaigning for the GOP nomination.

News reports say Simmons, the former US Congressman from Stonington, who represented eastern Connecticut's sprawling 2nd District, dominates the GOP field, winning 42 percent of the vote among registered Republicans. State Sen. Sam Caligiuri of Waterbury and former ambassador Tom Foley of Greenwich each receive 5 percent of the Republican vote, according to the poll.

For his part Simmons says he is well aware that polls can change, especially with time, which apparently is Dodd's strategy - hang in there long enough to work on the voters' memories and hope something good happens between now and Nov. 2010.

That goal may be somewhat difficult for Dodd to achieve, however, considering that he is now the leading Socialist Democrat in the US Senate pushing the so-called "Health Care Reform" on behalf of the Obama administration.

I say this because the elderly, representing one of the biggest demographics of voters in Connecticut, would suffer disproportionately from this hastily assembled travesty that Dodd and others are trying to ram through Congress. Even as the American population is aging, with grace, dignity and most of their faculties intact, the Democrats are working to severely limit, or possibly eliminate entirely, options for elderly medical care.

I predict that if this passes, by the fall of 2010 the story will be out. The elderly will know exactly what is coming at them, and Dodd will suffer.

It is ironic, and as I said in my last column, hypocritical of Connecticut's Socialist Democrats to try to resort to character assassination on Simmons' donors, when the real story is that Dodd is not considered trustworthy, as he continues to undermine health care for such a large portion of the state's population.

And while we are on the subject of fund-raising, I was going to print out Dodd's entire 396-page federal filing for the last quarter to see who was donating to his campaign, but it turns out that reporter Don Michak over at the Journal Inquirer already did it.

Guess where Dodd is getting his support? The banking industry and Wall Street fat cats to name a couple!

Oh, yeah, Dodd is the guy who is representing my interests in Washington, you can be sure of that.

Did you know that some of the smart asses on Wall Street profited in the billions of dollars by positioning themselves to take advantage of the housing market collapse and the increase in foreclosures?

Quoting directly from Michak's JI article, published Wednesday, July 22, 2009 on Dodd's donors: "They include three of the Wall Street heavyweights ... dubbed 'titans of the hedge fund world' - Philip Falcone of Harbinger Capital Partners, James Simons of Renaissance Technologies, and John Paulson of Paulson & Co. Falcone made the maximum allowable individual contribution of $4,800, and Simons contributed $2,500. Paulson who reportedly reaped billions by correctly betting on the collapse of the subprime mortgage markets and the resulting rush of foreclosures, also 'maxed out' a with $4,800 contribution."

Well, I guess we know where our Senator's loyalties are directed, don't we?

Simmons, who has been keeping up a strenuous pace criss-crossing the state on campaign appearances, says he won't be letting up one iota between now and Election Day next year. "My goal is to continue building a strong grassroots movement to restore decency and common sense to Washington, and I will continue working hard to take my message of service above self to every voter."

I also had a good laugh when I received an email from Simmons' campaign manager last night, offering a chance to have Dodd 'in my pocket', with a far smaller donation than the Wall Street fat cats and business executives have to pay.

The message stated,
"Senator Dodd wants you to believe - get this - that he makes lobbyists cry. A web video his campaign released to much ridicule last week claimed that lobbyists couldn't even get a meeting with the Senator.

So what was Dodd doing this weekend? According to the newspaper The Hill, he was schmoozing with lobbyists at a high-priced retreat on Martha's Vineyard.

And it's not the first example of Dodd cozying up with lobbyists in recent months. Last month, he attended a fund-raiser with health industry lobbyists while chairing health reform in the Senate. From AIG to Countrywide's Angelo Mozilo, lobbyists and special interests have always had Chairman Dodd in their back pocket.

We thought it was about time that you as an ordinary citizen have Connecticut's senior Senator in your pocket - and for a lot less than the millions in campaign contributions the banking, financial services, and insurance industries have showered on Chairman Dodd over the years."

So what are they offering over at the Simmons campaign? Donate $5 or more and they'll send you a cutout of a photo of Dodd, conveniently sized to fit in your pocket!

Hey, at least someone out there has a sense of humor. If the non-stop attacks on our country that I see coming from Washington all day every day were all I saw or heard, I'd probably be suffering from a deep, deep depression.

I guess in one sense we could say that Rob Simmons has arrived. Not that he hasn't been here before, and in many ways never left, but now, in the race to oust incumbent Senator Chris Dodd, Simmons has become the premier target of Connecticut's Socialist Democratic leadership.

Simmons, a former Republican Congressman from Connecticut's 2nd District, far outdistanced every other Republican candidate in fund-raising for the just ended quarter, bringing in $750,000 - most of it in individual contributions from more than 5,000 donors. Connecticut voters know and like Simmons and he polls far better than Dodd, although those numbers are likely to tighten as we get closer to next year's election.

Nonetheless, realizing that their guy is on the ropes, hugely unpopular, and the object of Dump Dodd! demonstrations all over Connecticut, the Socialist Democrats went on the attack and in perusing Simmons' quarterly fund-raising report found that a Texas billionaire who has funded numerous Republican candidates and causes over the years - GAVE MONEY TO ROB SIMMONS!

Out of the three-quarters of a million dollars that Simmons raised in the last quarter, Texas billionaire and philanthropist Harold Simmons - no relation - donated nearly $5,000.

Wow! What an expose! Be still my beating heart! How did this happen? Mill around smartly! Run in circles, scream and shout!

I kid you not, and in fact I'll let you read this article from the Hartford Courant yourself:

Combing through Republican senatorial candidate Rob Simmons' recent campaign finance report, state Democrats have uncovered a $4,800 donation from Harold Simmons.

Harold Simmons -- no relation to Rob -- is the same guy who gave $2 million in 2004 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which ran ads attacking Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam record. Last year, Harold Simmons donated $3 million to the group responsible for an ad tying Barack Obama to former '60s radical William Ayers."

Oh, My, Gawd! How will Rob ever recover? The newspaper article was actually prompted by a release from Connecticut Socialist Democrats' spokesperson Colleen Flanagan, part of which I'll share:

Hartford, CT - Again belying his attempted image as a moderate voice of reason, Rob Simmons showed where his ideology truly lies, accepting $4,800 (the legal limit for the primary) from Harold Simmons (of no relation) ... .

Harold Simmons gave $2 million to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and just last year, gave nearly $3 million to the American Issues Project, the group responsible for the infamous ad attempting to tie President Obama to former Weather Underground member William Ayers.

Harold Simmons, also has a shady history of past violations with the FEC ... . Harold Simmons' violations included making political contributions in his daughters' names without their knowledge or permission. He eventually ... paid nearly $20,000 in fines to the FEC.

"Harold Simmons helped smear a man who served valiantly in Vietnam and attempted to paint as a domestic terrorist another man, who happens to be our country's President."

Here is what is great about the Dems' news release, which I have to point out can not possibly carry much weight with my Democratic friends, of whom there are many. I know my friends too well and most aren't at all happy with Dodd, those who know Rob Simmons like him - and likely will vote for him - and don't appreciate hypocrisy or character assassination in the political arena.

Connecticut's Socialist Democratic leadership is grasping at straws to find some way to criticize Simmons. That is a good thing.

But let's take a minute to parse this statement. First, Harold Simmons gave to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group I consider to be among the most honorable, highly decorated, patriotic Americans on the national scene. These were men who served with, or in the same part of Vietnam as "Hanoi" John Kerry, the guy who used his political connections to get purple hearts for boo-boos, including a sliver in his finger, and a grain of rice in his ass from mishandling a weapon - absolute truth. Except they actually served.

Here is Hanoi John Kerry demonstrating against the United States and members of the US Armed Forces shortly after his abbreviated tour of duty in Vietnam. Kerry was a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a motley group of posers, embellishers and wannabes, many of whom claimed military service, duty stations and actions that were falsified. The worked to undermine the troops in Vietnam and were listed by the Vietnamese communists as a prime ally in their takeover of South Vietnam.

Kerry used his political connections to get a Silver Star medal for shooting an unarmed, wounded Viet Cong, (so he says) an act that violates every rule of the battlefield and the Geneva Convention. Kerry then came home to America after a four-month tour (he spent the first month sailing on Cam Ranh Bay learning to steer a power boat) and organized a kangaroo court called the Winter Solider Investigation in which he and about 140 of his communist friends falsely portrayed Americans serving in Vietnam as rapists, murderers and baby killers.

This is a photo of Hanoi John from Strangepolitics.com that I think captures his true image. In this shot he and his Congressional cohorts are stabbing our current veterans in the back, much as he did to the Vietnam veterans.
The truth about the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth is that they were the real heroes of the Naval Riverine Service and most of America agreed with their assessment of Kerry. The proof of this is the fact that Hanoi John was trounced in the 2004 presidential election.

And to this day, Kerry, who is alleged to have gone to Paris to meet with communist leaders while he was in the Naval Reserves, still refuses to release his military records to the public, to put to rest the claims that he received a dishonorable discharge for his acts of treachery. Oh, and the communists' war museum in Vietnam lists Kerry as one of their heroes.

This photo shows how close Kerry is to President Obama.

You can draw whatever conclusion you want from this photo, I am including it just to show you that they are close. Very close.



Let's take a minute and see how Rob Simmons, (who served honorably for a full term in Vietnam and didn't get any medals he didn't deserve, and who then served in the CIA, and then was a Senate staffer, and then served in the Connecticut General Assembly before his election to the US House of Representatives) regards the United States flag.


This, ladies and gentlemen is how I expect anyone who is running for or serving in the government, whether it is local, regional, state or national, to appear with the United States flag.



For comparison, let's see how the other darling of the Connecticut Socialist Democrats Party, William Ayers, treats the American flag. Remember, this is the guy who was a co-founder of the Weather Underground, the ultra-violent anti-American group from the Vietnam era that bombed police stations and government buildings, injuring and killing people in the name of peace. And he was successfully linked to President Obama, with help I'm certain from Harold Simmons.

See what I mean?


It turns out that Ayers was on the ground floor in launching Obama's political career, and seeing as how our government now is on a headlong rush to socialism if not outright communism, it is more than a little apparent that Ayers and his ilk have plenty of influence in the current administration.

And, just to show a positive link between the way Ayers sees America's national standard, and the way President Obama sees our national standard, take a gander at this photo from the campaign trail last year.









Now, what was it again that the Socialist Democrats were complaining about? Oh, yes, Rob Simmons accepted a campaign contribution from a man who has a lengthy history of supporting patriotic, pro-American causes and candidates. I see.

Oh, and the Dems are trying to make a big deal that once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, Harold Simmons was fined $20,000 for giving too much! Sorry about that, I guess he got carried away with wanting to save America!

But what the Dems don't tell you is that Mr. Simmons is also a huge supporter of numerous worthy organizations including: Dallas Civic Opera; Edwin L. Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University, including $1.8 million to establish the Simmons Distinguished Professorship in Marketing, and $1.2 million for the President's Scholars Program; The Hobby-Eberly Telescope Dark Energy Experiment at the University of Texas, in addition to UT athletic programs, the McCombs School of Business, and the UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas (exceeding $70 million); the Young America's Foundation; research into chronic kidney disease; $5 million to the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in South Africa; $5 million to the Dallas Zoo, the largest single private contribution in the zoo's 120 year history; etc., etc. etc.

One last thing before I go. Aside from the sheer hypocrisy of the attack on Simmons (actually both Rob and Harold) there was this little tidbit in the Socialist Democrats' news release that I just have to share with you.

"Their last names are the same, and you have to wonder if their ideology isn't the same, too," said Connecticut Democratic Party Communications Director Colleen Flanagan. Actually, I'd say the fact that Mr. Simmons (Harold) donated to Mr. Simmons (Rob), shows they share at least some ideological concepts. That they share a last name is irrelevant, but I'm sure you already knew that.

However, taking the lead from Ms. Flanagan, who obviously is adept at knowing when and where to set an ambush, I looked up the name Dodd on the Internet. Guess what I found?

If you go to this website: http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2009/03/troopers-shut-down-dover-ecstasy-drug.html you will find that police in Dover, Delaware arrested a guy allegedly named James R. Dodd last week, who allegedly was involved in a drug ring. He was confined on a whole bunch of charges pending a court appearance with bail set at over $200,000.

So, seeing as how he has the same last name as our current senator, do they also share the same ideology? Or should I look further until I find someone with the name Dodd who is involved in real estate, both foreign and domestic?

Updated July 19, 2009, 6:29 p.m.

Newscasters and script writers who in many cases have no personal memory of Walter Cronkite, are falling all over themselves today to mourn the death of a decrepit old propagandist who is best remembered as the person who sold out South Vietnam, Southeast Asia, the American military and by extension, America.

He was wholly undeserving of the label "the most trusted man in America" bestowed on him by his fellow communists in the media. In fact, Cronkite was so upset with the overwhelming American victory in the Tet Offensive of 1968 in South Vietnam that he hurried to Saigon and falsely reported that the victory was actually a loss.

Cronkite then told the American public that had been duped into believing him because he had a fatherly appearance on TV, that the war was unwinnable, and hopelessly mired in a stalemate.

Check out the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4w-ud-TyE

A "stalemate" in the summer of 1968? The communists were hammered beyond belief! But America never knew it because Cronkite and his followers lied to the public that believed them.

From that point on, despite military victory upon military victory, and admissions by the communists after the war that they were on the cusp of surrender, Cronkite and the media lemmings of that time who neither had the ability, the courage or the political philosophy to stand up to him and report the truth, led America and its allies into a black hole of despair that resulted in wholesale slaughter and mass migrations.

As a result of his manipulation of the news and his position as a trusted news reader, South Vietnam fell to the communists in 1975 and more of Southeast Asia soon followed. Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese were forced into concentration camps where more than 150,000 were murdered. Another 2 million fled the communists by taking to the South China Sea on anything that would float, hoping to be rescued by friendly ships.

Of that 2 million an estimated 300,000 perished, falling prey to sharks, pirates who raped and murdered at will, and the elements. After South Vietnam fell, Cambodia and Laos soon followed with communists embarking on murderous rampages of death and destruction that left millions dead, in mass graves that stretched nearly beyond imagination.

I have already heard the word "colleague" many times in the outpouring of tributes from the media. Based on his record of deceit and lies, anyone who considers themselves a colleague of his should be viewed for the rest of their career as collaborators and propagandists who can not and should not be trusted.

Cronkite was also referred to as "Uncle Walter." An unbiased view of his record while he was employed, and the truth that emerged following his career as a propagandist, reveals that he had far more in common with "Uncle Ho" Chi Minh than Uncle Sam.

Cronkite revealed after Vietnam fell that he was a leftist, a communist sympathizer, which is the same as being a communist. He blithely enjoyed a highly paid retirement, spending his time yachting and giving speeches on the glories of wealth distribution and commune living while he lived high on wages paid in blood, misery, torture and death.

The modern media that itself is dying a slow death due to the seeds of distrust and dishonesty sown by Cronkite and his ilk, is following the pattern he established of telling only what it wants to tell, and ignoring any and all facts that tend to question the prevailing "wisdom." Some are gushing over his exploits in World War II.

Considering the millions of people who died due to his deceit in the decades after that war, it could well be considered a major human tragedy that he survived the fighting in Europe in 1944 and 1945. How many millions would have lived if he had not been a secret cheerleader for the communists?

Want more? Aside from Vietnam, Uncle Walter believed in a new world order, that the US should give up its sovereignty, along with every other country in the world, and that a world court should judge us all.

Don't believe me? Check this out.



Cronkite was referred to by Juan Williams, with additional support from his colleague Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, as trustworthy and credible. Bull! Cronkite LIED in his reports from Vietnam, and millions died as a result.

His legacy is internal destruction of the First Amendment guarantees to freedom of the press. The American media is committing a slow suicide thanks to Uncle Walter, and you can't help but wonder if it was all on purpose.

Shut down the media, and you shut down dissent. Fortunately, he didn't anticipate the Internet.

Wherever Cronkite's remains are discarded, it will be too good for him. The mass graves of Cambodia are a more fitting tribute. If there is anything remotely resembling justice in this world, his carcass would be dumped in an unmarked hole in the ground that has plenty of room for his partners - Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, John Kerry, and Jane Fonda to name just a few.

When I was a kid my mother used to tell me that if I couldn't say something nice about someone, not to say anything at all. She also used to caution not to speak ill of the dead.

I didn't listen to her back then either.

A Sonia Sotomayor impersonator sat through the first full day of real questions on her suitability to serve on the US Supreme Court Tuesday, totally destroying what should have been revealing testimony on her judicial philosophy.

Instead, Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy repeatedly testified on Sotomayor's behalf. He deftly diverted any incisive inquiries from Republicans who were surprisingly intent on showcasing the conflicting comments the real Sotomayor has made on the speech circuit, versus the rehearsed testimony that is supposed to lull America into a false sense of security.

Leahy and his lemmings testified on Sotomayor's behalf to such an extent that it was obvious he should have moved from his chairman's seat to the witness stand. And if he had it would have been equally obvious that Leahy is not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Thus, since his testimony is being substituted for the real candidate's, she shouldn't be seated either.

Her commentary on issues running from gun rights to abortion was evasive at best, conflicting and confusing at worst. She had to be bailed out by Leahy and his cohorts so many times that it would not be surprising to see her go down like the Titanic.
















The news was full of conflicting stories on how well the Sotomayor impersonator did during the confirmation hearing, but I am wondering whether the Democrats will abandon their game plan. It would be nice to see the real candidate show up, meaning someone who is prepared to answer questions and not fumble around like a fish out of water.

If Republican nominees to the Supreme Court had ever been this unprepared for similar hearings they would have been crucified.

But the Obama White House and the Socialist Democratic Party want Sotomayor to get a pass so they can say they seated the first Hispanic woman on the high court. This they believe will give them an edge that they will desperately need in the fall elections and the mid-term elections next year.

My friends of Hispanic ancestry, of whom there are many, don't necessarily see it that way. In the first place, the Hispanic vote is no more unified than the "white" vote, seeing as how so many countries around the world are populated by Spanish speaking people.

But Americans of Cuban descent don't always agree with Americans of Mexican or Puerto Rican descent, any more than the Scots always agree with the English, or the French with the Germans, etc.

So the Socialist Democrats are flawed in their thinking from the outset and are running the risk of a huge backlash. Sotomayor has not been doing well at all. She has not shown herself to be the very best that America can ask for on the Supreme Court and if she proves to be an embarrassment to whatever segment of the Hispanic community is backing her, the Democrats will reap the resulting whirlwind.

So, even though I have work to do, I plan on keeping the office TV tuned in to FOX News today to keep an eye on the proceedings. You never know what might come out of this if the Republican Senators continue to develop a unified backbone and do the job they were hired to do, rather than misreading the mood of the voting public and kowtowing to Leahy's Lemmings.

Mid-July is an important time all across the country on the federal election calendar, because financial reports are due and everyone wants to see who has raised the most money, as well as the sources of the funding.

It is especially important in Connecticut where a heated race is underway in the Republican Party to determine who will face Democratic Senator Chris Dodd next year. Dodd's popularity is at an all-time low and a tight race for what had been a solid Democratic seat is anticipated.

Leading the race for the GOP nomination, in both the fund-raising and support categories, is former Congressman Rob Simmons. He is followed by Greenwich businessman and former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley, with Sam Caligiuri, state senator from Waterbury running a distant third.

Most opinionists maintain that he who has the most money has the best chance of winning the nomination. This theory has at its base the concept that more money equals more communications abilities and thus the candidate with the most of each will attract the most votes.

In Connecticut, however, that theory went right out the window when the other Democratic Senator, Joe Lieberman, lost the Democratic nomination to rich Democratic businessman Ned Lamont. But Lieberman went out to the general electorate and won hands down despite Lamont throwing millions of his own dollars into the contest.

There are numerous reasons behind that turn of events, including the fact that many Democrats aren't happy with the far left wing of their own party, even though that wing has control of the party and engineered Lamont's nomination. Lieberman also is popular with Independent and Republican voters, and they rallied behind their senator despite his running on a third-party ticket.

There also is the concept that if people do know a candidate, and don't like that candidate, all that is accomplished by mass communications is reminding the voters that they dislike the person.

According to all the pre-filing day publicity, Rob Simmons is leading the fund-raising efforts for the GOP nomination, and thus is considered the front runner. Caligiuri has raised about one-seventh of the money that Simmons has, and Foley is supposed to have raised roughly two-thirds of Simmons' total. The exact figures will be known when the reports are filed this week.

But it is worthwhile here to question whether being ahead in the money game means being ahead overall. For example, in a recent blog I called on GOP national chairman Michael Steele to exert some influence on Congressional Republicans who are helping the Democrats push a Socialist agenda.

The Democrats, despite majorities in both houses of Congress, have enough independent minded people in their party that programs reflecting a socialist philosophy can't be guaranteed passage, unless sufficient Republicans defect, which unfortunately, they have been doing, seemingly with impunity. In that column I also noted how the Connecticut GOP has a history exerting control by supporting some candidates, including incumbents, and not supporting others, by either opening the funding spigot, or closing it off entirely.

Specifically I said:

"The Republican Party in Connecticut where I live has a long history of screwing over people who aren't part of the inner circle of party hacks. Promising help to aspiring candidates who then get left swinging in the breeze when they find out that only some candidates, who get prior approval from D.C., really get any help, is a big joke and a favorite pastime of the Connecticut GOP's inner circle. No kidding, I've seen this time and time again."

Oddly enough, that one paragraph, out of the entire column, generated the most comments, some of which I published. And even though the writers preferred to remain anonymous there were some questions raised that deserve to be debated. To refresh your memory, the comments were:

Ron ... A few months ago I was privy to a conversation among high-ranking CT GOP insiders about the upcoming U.S. Senate race. Although they were aware of my identity, they were completely unaware of my allegiances and perception of them.

They were bemoaning the decision of State Senator Sam Caligiuri to challenge former Rep. Rob Simmons for the nomination. In their conversations they seemed to regard the nomination as Simmons's birthright because he had served in Congress. They spoke about how Caligiuri was an overall good guy "except for what he's doing challenging Simmons". Moreover, they spoke about how Caligiuri would find himself "shut out" from fundraising channels, especially those outside the party.

But the larger issue here is that I find the back room efforts of state party insiders to rig the nomination for Simmons to be disturbing. It points to a larger issue: the reality that many GOP insiders actively work to impede the efforts of talented candidates. Is it any wonder that the Socialist Democrat Party has control of the country? We'll never win when we're divided like this.

I felt honor bound to respond that Rob Simmons is my friend, fellow Vietnam vet, hardly an insider, and the candidate I will support right through a primary, and to the 2010 election if he wins the nomination.

That in turn generated another response and this is why I have brought this who issue up again, because the response deserves an answer.

July 03, 2009 8:50 PM
Anonymous said...
Ron, although I disagree with you, I respect you 100% in your support for Simmons. You are an honorable man and fighting the fight the way its supposed to be fought. My beef is with the party insiders who think they are doing the GOP a favor by rigging nominations. Recognizing that you are supporting Rob, would you agree with me in saying that Rob has no special claim to the nomination and that he has to campaign just as hard as the other candidates to earn it?

I am not supporting Caligiuri. I haven't yet decided who to support. ... What I will say is that there are a lot of honest hard-working republicans who are pissed off at the GOP party establishment and believe that GOP insiders and party bosses are part of the problem. I have to say that I'm pissed off at what's happened to the party - how our ideal, our values, and our principles have all been watered down. ... Let me ask you three more questions, Ron.
(1) What did the senior vote do for John McCain?
(2) What makes you think that Simmons will do better than John McCain in Connecticut? The two of them seem an awful lot alike.
(3) How does Simmons win the state, given his struggles to hold onto the 2nd Congressional District? What if Dodd drops out and Simmons has to go head to head against Chris Murphy? Or in other words if people's anger at Dodd comes off the table as an issue, how does Simmons fare on his own merits?

OK, first off I don't think Rob Simmons or anyone else who is running for office has a right to that office. I think incumbents should work just as hard on successive terms as they did to get into office in the first place.

As an example I would refer you to Pam Sawyer, long-time Republican Representative for the state's 55th District, covering Andover, Hebron, Marlborough and Bolton. Pam goes out and campaigns just as hard even when she is unopposed, as she did the very first time.

And you see her all the time in between election cycles, doing her job, addressing constituents' concerns and representing her district. I believe she does what all politicians should do. Unfortunately not everyone follows Pam's lead.

Rob is one of those people who has a work ethic like Pam does, and that is one reason why I am supporting him. Rob also has never used his office to enrich himself. However, while I am supporting Rob, I also think he should be working for the nomination and not taking anything for granted.

The party leadership in Connecticut knows Rob; he was in the state legislature before he went to Congress so name recognition in our party should be a given. But I don't see Rob as a backroom wheeler dealer. I know him to be honest and up front. He knows people but I don't believe for a minute that he believes the nomination is his just because he wants it.

The senior vote didn't do enough for John McCain, but the real issue was that he lost the veteran vote. There are many, many Vietnam veterans, the largest segment of the veteran demographic, who are not supporters of McCain for a number of reasons including his stance on immigration and POWs-MIAs.

The loss of that demographic hurt McCain enough for him to lose the presidential race. Rob Simmons is respected to the maximum by the majority of veterans and Chris Dodd has no means of taking that support away from him.

For that reason alone, Simmons will do far better in Connecticut than McCain, not to mention the fact that Simmons - if he is nominated - will be running against Dodd who is having severe credibility and support problems. Even if he runs against another Democrat, which doesn't seem likely, Simmons has a solid base of support and good will.

Rob lost the 2006 election by 83 votes not because he was not popular enough, but because his own party from the Bush White House and national Republicans in Congress, right down to the local level, worked against him, tacitly if not overtly.

In my community at that time there were 8 voting machines. Gov. Jodi Rell polled about 100 votes more than Rob on each machine. If he had matched her on just one of them, he would probably still be our Congressman.

Why didn't he? Because Republicans in my community worked for Rell, but not for down-ticket candidates. In addition, Republicans in my community actively worked against a candidate who was a bit further down the ticket than Rob, forgetting Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment and the concept of collateral damage.

All together, the votes that went for Rell were not carried on down ticket and every single Republican candidate suffered, Rob probably more than any other. He also was outright sabotaged in other communities, by his own party, which again flies in the face of the "insider" label.

So, will being the front runner for this quarter ensure that Rob gets the nomination? And if he does, will it carry him to victory against Dodd?

Well, for starters, Tom Foley, whom I have never met, and who seems like a very accomplished man, got a lot of money very quickly because he knows where to get a lot of money very quickly. He did it for George Bush after all, and that as I understand it, is how he became Ambassador to Ireland.

But Rob got much of his money from the rank-and-file - thousands of individual donations according to a recent statement from his campaign.

Money translates to communications abilities, but money from lots of people translates to votes. No one has a crystal ball and there is no guarantee that Rob will stay on top, but then again, even if he doesn't there is no guarantee that having the most money will translate into the most votes.

Even though Sam Caligiuri is pretty far behind, he announced today that he favors term limits, a matter that is near and dear to my heart. It certainly got my attention, and probably is doing him some good in areas where people aren't already committed to someone else.

But then again, Rob Simmons supports term limits too. By all reports Simmons leads the way today, and I will be supporting him regardless of whether that changes because I believe he is the best man for the job. But it is a long way to the 2010 election, and many things can change.

So I'm not ruling anything out at the moment, but in my opinion, the man who is leading the race is the man who should be leading the race, and I will be working to make sure he goes pole to pole.

For the past several years a major First Amendment case has been bubbling upward in the national court system, ever since an irate, and slightly off-color high school student in western Connecticut became incensed over the actions of the school administration and described said administrators in a less than flattering manner - on her home computer, off school grounds, after school hours.

The young lady, Avery Doninger, was harshly dealt with after the school superintendent heard about the slur and sent her son on an Internet search that reportedly took three weeks before Ms. Doninger's unflattering comments were found. Obviously she was right on the cusp of instigating student unrest, by displaying her feelings in such an open manner.

(Note to my readers: I attended and participated in a fund-raising effort on Ms. Doninger's behalf to help with her legal expenses two years ago. I make no apologies for standing up for the First Amendment. You may not like her words, nor her manner, but Ms. Doninger did nothing that many of us have not also done, and she did it discreetly, on her own time. You should have heard a few of the things I said on the school bus back when I was a kid and felt a teacher had been unfair.)

I lifted the following column from my friend Andy Thibault's Cool Justice Blogspot. He in turn reprinted it from the Student Press Law Center in Arlington, VA. I encourage you to visit both sites after you have read the article.

My fear on this issue is that it won't stop with a now-college-aged student's musings. What happens if I decide to write columns on local, state or national school budgets and refer to school officials as "greedy dunderheads who are dumbing down the US educational system,"? Will I find my column censored?

Apparently Judge Sotomayor thinks that would be appropriate. I'd hate to think what she believes about my opinions on a wide variety of Supreme Court decisions!

So without further ado, I bring you another opinion on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.


Posted: July 10, 2009 at 5:24 pm
by Frank LoMonte
Student Press Law Center

When Judge Sonia Sotomayor takes her seat for her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, she will have the opportunity to set right a terrible mistake that threatens to undermine the safety of student journalists.

Last year, Judge Sotomayor signed her name to an ill-considered ruling that significantly expanded high schools' authority to punish students' speech - even off-campus speech on personal time. If it is not corrected or overturned, the ruling will leave online student journalists and commentators vulnerable to being disciplined for "crimes" no greater than exposing administrators' wrongdoing.

The case, Doninger v. Niehoff , involved a Connecticut high school student, Avery Doninger, who used her home computer on personal time to write a blog criticizing school administrators for blocking a student-organized concert. The blog regrettably used two coarse words, for which the student's mother amply punished her.

But the student's principal wasn't satisfied to leave the discipline to the parents. Even though no school resources were used, and there was no evidence anyone even read the blog at school, the principal punished the student by disqualifying her from class office.

The student sought a court order restoring her to office, claiming the school could not punish her off-campus speech. A district court found no First Amendment violation and denied her petition, and the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed. Judge Sotomayor did not write the Second Circuit's opinion, but she joined the 3-0 ruling without reservation.

While the facts may seem unsympathetic, wise and careful judges must see beyond the distasteful facts of individual cases to the larger legal principles that protect us all.

For 40 years, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that public schools may not censor students' speech - even on-campus during class time - so long as the speech does not "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school." "Substantial disruption" normally means stirring up students to violence, or interfering with others' ability to learn - but in Doninger, the Second Circuit set a perilously lower bar.

In the view of the Sotomayor panel, it is "substantially disruptive" if a student's speech causes members of the public to call and e-mail the principal so that the principal must take time to respond. And the court suggested that speech may lose its First Amendment protection if it uses "offensive" (but not obscene, or even profane) language, and if it exaggerates the facts (in this instance, by saying that the student concert was canceled, rather than canceled with a possibility of rescheduling, which is an awfully hair-splitting "exaggeration").

To reach that result, the court had to ignore an overwhelming body of legal precedent, including a very recent Supreme Court ruling, Morse v. Frederick, in which the Court unequivocally said that "offensiveness" does not justify punishing a student's speech - even at a school event, let alone on a personal blog. Chief Justice Roberts - no student-rights radical - put it best: "After all, much political and religious speech might be perceived as offensive to some."

In accepting the president's nomination, Judge Sotomayor professed, "I strive never to forget the real-world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government." The Doninger decision, regrettably, displays no recognition of the inevitable spillover effect on those who want to use blogs for more serious commentary - or the grim reality under which many student journalists operate today.

As soon as courts tell school administrators, "You can get away with X," the worst ones are on the phone to their lawyers saying, "Give me a legal opinion that says I can get away with Y and Z, too." Using the blank-check authority that courts have all-too-readily extended, administrators have fired top journalism teachers, placed award-winning journalism programs under prior-restraint clampdowns, and intimidated student whistleblowers into silence. Even in California, a state known for tolerating diverse viewpoints, retaliatory discharges of journalism teachers are so common that legislators were forced last year to expressly outlaw the practice.

We do not have to speculate whether future courts will expand upon and misapply the Doninger opinion to the detriment of journalists. We know that they will, because we have the recent experience of the Supreme Court's Morse case to guide us. In Morse, the Court said that student speech advocating the use of illegal drugs was outside the protection of the First Amendment. The Court repeatedly and unmistakably told lower courts that its ruling pertained solely to speech promoting drugs.

Nonetheless, court after court has misapplied Morse in cases having nothing to do with drugs. Most distressingly, in March, a federal district court in New York decided that Morse legitimized the censorship of an editorial cartoon poking mild fun at an Ithaca high school's sex-education curriculum. In the view of the judge, making light of sex education equated to encouraging students to run out and have unsafe sex, which the judge concluded is just as dangerous as using drugs.

Change the facts of the Doninger case slightly. Avery Doninger is a student journalist who has discovered that a school-bus driver who just crashed his bus was driving with a revoked license. Because the principal will not allow her to print a negative story in the campus newspaper - a scenario that we at the Student Press Law Center confront daily - Avery takes the story home and posts it on her blog, along with a quote from the irate parent of an injured student: "I want to know who's the damned idiot who let this butthead drive my kids around." The principal responds by firing Avery as editor of the campus paper and banning her from the staff of the paper next year.

Because of the Doninger court, that student has no recourse in the Second Circuit today. She printed coarse language about school personnel in a manner that is certain to make the principal's phone ring, and her punishment stopped short of suspension or expulsion.

That is the legacy left by the Doninger court - that student journalism, even in off-campus independent outlets, may be punishable if it risks causing a large number of complaints to the principal. The work of journalists, when done at its best, is meant to provoke a public response. We should protect and celebrate that work, not expose it to punishment.

For a century, federal court interpretations of the First Amendment have been guided by two overriding imperatives. One is that the government's censorship authority must be tightly constrained, so that officials cannot abuse their power to single out certain disfavored speech for differential treatment (for instance, punishing the person who causes 100 critical e-mails to flood the mailbox, but not the person responsible for 100 congratulatory e-mails). The other is that close judgment calls must go to the speaker, not the regulator, so that speakers do not unnecessarily censor themselves for fear they may be approaching a hazy line of legality. The Doninger ruling neither tightly constrains the government nor provides speakers with clear guidance as to what is prohibited.

The Doninger ruling came at a preliminary stage of the case, at which the Court of Appeals was resolving a narrow issue. It could, and should, have been a two-sentence opinion. Instead, the court reached to make new and damaging First Amendment law, driven by a singular objective: find a way for the student to lose and the school to win.

Judge Sotomayor will have the chance to explain her support for the Doninger ruling before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She should not be allowed to evade questions about this troubling decision, because her support for it goes to the very heart of her ability, as a justice, to write careful opinions that anticipate and avoid misuse in future cases. Judge Sotomayor should use the Judiciary Committee platform to say she understands that student journalism is under siege from out-of-control censorship, and that she recognizes the pendulum has swung too far toward unchecked school authority.

When was the last time you saw a "celebrity-studded" tribute to memorialize the death of a member of the US Armed Forces?

When was the last time the media spent day after day engaged in non-stop coverage of the "untimely death" of heroes who gave their lives to defend the freedoms of millions of Americans who never have to do anything more difficult than getting out of bed in the morning?

That's right. You can't remember. Because it doesn't happen. Because our alleged "news media" is so wrapped up in coverage of freak show entertainer Michael Jackson's entirely predictable death - presumably from the "Hollywood Diet" which replaces food and liquids with extra strength drugs until the body gives out - that there is no room for viable coverage of our troops or other issues that truly matter to us.

Did you hear about the two Americans who were killed in Afghanistan on July 4th? Not likely, unless you read Michelle Malkin's blog, or similar Internet outlets. You hear alleged "journalists" complaining all the time lately about the Internet taking over coverage of the news, and how "real" journalists working for "real" news outlets are losing their jobs.

Tough. This is a perfect example of why the public has turned off the traditional media and changed to the new world of blogs, social networking sites and other Internet outlets.

Oh, and from me - a real journalist - to you, the reader, I have met Michelle Malkin on two occasions, watched her work, and have nothing but the utmost respect for her abilities. If people are complaining about her it's because she is so good at what she does and they are not.

Back to the issue of the moment. I have had it with this wall-to-wall coverage of Jackson's death. He is in all likelihood the most pathetic person to emerge from America's celebrity mills since - well since the last mindless automaton who was totally lacking in self-esteem and would do virtually anything for a few minutes of media coverage. Take your pick - there is an entire city of these wasted shells of humanity in California.

Yet from the instant, and I mean the instant, that word of his hospitalization and possible death flashed across the wires, the world of the mainstream media went berserk. I was watching something on Fox News when it first started, probably Neal Cavuto who is one of my favorites, and the next thing I knew, Fox had broken away for LIVE COVERAGE of an inanimate hospital building!

Oh, eventually, several dozens of people, probably drawn by the media, had gathered across the street from the hospital to stand around watching the inanimate building, and that of course was far more interesting. Inanimate people are always more interesting than inanimate buildings.

Then the live coverage switched to that alleged palace of porn, also called Neverland Ranch, where the object of the media's attention used to invite young boys - prepubescent boys - to "sleep over" with him, a grown man in his 30s, in his bed, but of course nothing untoward ever happened. They just "played."

Even if "nothing happened" that is just plan sick. And to elevate a person who engages in that kind of lifestyle to the heights of celebrity is beyond irresponsible it is reprehensible.

Anyway, while I was missing the latest news on the state of the American economy, FOX News was showing live coverage of other media outlets' remote transmission trucks pulling up to the Jackson's home so they too could provide live coverage of another inanimate object. Good grief, did anyone think this through?

This crap, posing as news, has continued on for over a week now, and my television has been off for most of that time. I refuse to read any articles about it on my computer and I won't listen to it on the radio. Why?

Because frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!

There are real things happening to real people in this world and a lot of them could have disastrous affects on America and Americans. But we aren't hearing about them, are we?

Did you know that President Barack Obama is being backed into a corner by Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela and a handful of despotic nut cases around the world and doesn't know what to do about it?

Did you see where Obama looked deep into Russian dictator Vladimir RasPutin's eyes and fell in love? Look it up. It's out there. I heard from a usually reliable source that Obama couldn't take his wife to Saudi Arabia recently because it would be a violation of sharia law, so he sent her on an international shopping spree and spent his spare time learning to bow and scrape.

We should know these things. They are far more important than a town full of sycophants filling an entertainment venue somewhere to pay homage to a pathetic individual who once did some good music but for the last two decades has led a life of public debauchery and deterioration.

Princess Diana had millions of followers and so did Ronald Reagan. Both of them did good things for their countries and for humanity. People came out for their funerals in droves to say a respectful goodbye.

But this? The biggest celebrity sendoff of all time? Complete with a parade of elephants?

Ladies and gentlemen this is truly a circus.

There is plenty to mourn in the death of a person who once had so much talent and the potential to use it for so much good. But there is nothing to "celebrate" in his life, except possibly the end of such a disgraceful public spectacle. What a pathetic role model for America's youth!

I started out watching Fox and Friends this morning to get up to speed on world happenings overnight. But by the time Geraldo Rivera came on with his latest breathless update on who knows what, I decided enough was enough.

Know what else was on at that time? A Food Channel segment on doughnuts, how they're made and some cool places where you can get them. I found that to be of incredible interest.

There is a bakery about 10 minutes away where they make some great sweets and pastries. I think I'll take a break and go pay them a visit. They have excellent coffee too. Both are of far more importance to me right now than this spectacle posing as news.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a long-term Socialist Democrat from Maryland's 5th Congressional District, appeared on Fox News Sunday this week to apologize for the shortcomings of the Obama Administration's failed "economic stimulus policy."

The plan hasn't worked, the promised jobs have not materialized, and unemployment is approaching 10 percent even though President Obama promised it would not go over 8 percent if his plan was passed, Hoyer admitted sheepishly.

Hoyer said he was terribly "disappointed" in President Obama's failed "economic stimulus policy" and true to form for the Social Democrats, he blamed it all on the Bush Administration going all the way back to 2001 when we were attacked by terrorists who cost the economy something in the nature of $1 trillion.

Actually, considering that President Bush inherited a national security apparatus that was so full of holes you could strain spaghetti through it, and the resultant 9-11 attacks cost so much in infrastructure and business recovery, as well as rebuilding the military after it was dismantled by two previous Clinton administrations, Bush didn't really do too bad. We had a great economy going until the Socialist Democrats manipulated the housing market and then pulled the plug on it a few months before the last election.

But that isn't what I want to talk about. I want to talk about Obama's most recent apologist, Steny Hoyer. Specifically I want to know if he gets his fingernails manicured.

Why? Well it occurred to me as I was listening to his apology for President Obama's failed "economic stimulus policy," and the expected blame shifting and finger pointing, that while millions of Americans are out of work or struggling to get by, Hoyer himself looks pretty prosperous.

He was wearing a suit that probably cost a couple of months pay for the average American, his tie looked to be worth at least a week's average income, and even his white shirt looked brand new, starched to a razor edge and tailored to fit perfectly.

His hair was nicely coiffed, except for one stray hair over his left ear - stage right as you look at the TV - that was shooting off into space. He really looked like he had been put together by a platoon of gentlemen's gentlemen who overlooked nothing while ensuring that he projected the best possible television image, except for that wild hair.

Which got me to wondering whether he gets manicures too? I mean, that would round out his image wouldn't it? I couldn't tell for sure because he kept his hands down for most of the segment and even when they were up in camera range, the Fox logo often obscured them.

I kept asking myself, how could a true blue Socialist Democrat allow himself to spend what has to be thousands upon thousands of dollars to keep his image polished when so many people are out of work? Shouldn't he be taking that money and donating it to a soup kitchen, or handing out hundred dollar bills on the unemployment line, to really help stimulate the economy?

How many people do you think he keeps employed by tending to his wardrobe and hair style? A handful at best I'd say. But if he took that money and put it where it would really do some good, well, then maybe we'd see some REAL stimulus instead of President Obama's failed economic stimulus policy.

Speaking of which, did you see on the news that while the Obama Administration claimed that there were "shovel ready projects" all over America that would spring to life the instant his "economic stimulus policy" was passed, the number that actually are ready amount to only 25 percent of the $800 billion. Meaning that $200 billion might enter the economy over the next year or so, but $600 billion is sitting in government coffers, unexpended. As far as we know.

I wonder what President Obama is planning to do with the additional $600 billion now that his "economic stimulus policy" has failed miserably? Tanking, to use one of Hoyer's expressions.

He isn't secretly building up that "national police force" is he? You remember that don't you? Candidate Obama talked about it out in Utah just about a year ago, and said he wanted it to be as large, well-equipped and well-funded as the military.

You know how much it costs to run the military each year? About $500 billion. It's true. So if President Obama is secretly building a secret national police force he'll have plenty of money to do it with, and about $100 billion left over for pocket change.

Now, where would you go about building a secret police force if you didn't want anyone knowing it until it was too late? How about the inner cities? Say where you have neighborhood activists at work who are likely to take a bribe - I'm sorry, I mean a patronage job - and keep their mouths shut.

The inner cities are the last place you'd expect to see the government actually doing something, even though there is so much need, because there are so few votes. Yeah, that would be the ideal location.

Hey, if you see any shady looking characters lurking around neighborhood centers in the inner city and they aren't there to help people get educated and find jobs, you may want to call your nearest blogger and let it out on the Internet. Don't waste your time calling the media, especially outfits like the Washington Post; they're too busy making money from influence peddling and similar rackets.

Do you think Obama really took his family to Russia on the 4th of July holiday for an actual "summit," or are they there for indoctrination? Inquiring minds certainly would like to know.

One last thing from Fox News Sunday today: did you notice that you can tell who in the Republican Party or conservative orthodoxy was undermining Sarah Palin during the presidential campaign just by how they react to her announcement that she is stepping down as Governor of Alaska?

Everyone who really likes her and supports her says, 'Wait and see. Let's see how this plays out. She may be crazy like a fox. Don't say the voters will see her as a quitter. Obama quit his Senate seat after barely a year into it to run for president and it sure didn't hurt him.'

But the sniveling cowards who have been leaking false stories to the press, and stabbing her in the back at every opportunity are bashing her now, using the same exact words and criticisms that the Socialist Democrats are using.

Remember on Friday I said someone had used the word 'rambling" to describe her announcement speech and you could be sure the lemmings would all jump on and use the same expression? OK, I was off by one Thesaurus entry.

The lemmings now are saying "incoherent" instead of rambling. Know what? I read the whole speech. It is here: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php

Read it yourself and see what you think. I understood it. Maybe the alleged GOP expert lemmings are just stupid. Maybe English is not their native language. Maybe they are saying that in hopes that most Americans won't read the speech. Made sense to me. Check it out for yourself.

At least the Socialist Democrats are staying true to their party. The alleged Republicans are just traitors and cowards who didn't have the courage to take her on openly.

I have to ask: Just how much stock should I put in the opinions of a bunch of self-anointed "experts," the vast majority of whom have never sought an elected position in their entire lives, especially when they haven't even been successful at getting anyone else elected in the last 5 years?

Maybe they really aren't Republicans. Maybe they are just self-serving saboteurs, who are working behind the scenes for the Socialist Democrats.

Maybe Sarah Palin figured that out right away last fall, and decided to swim against the tide and get something done. After all, as she pointed out on Friday "only dead fish go with the flow." Personally, I think the alleged top of the alleged GOP inside the D.C. beltway reeks of dead fish.

I think I'll wait and see before I pass judgment on Mrs. Palin.

Happy 233rd Birthday America!

Today is the day we pause to remember the men who put their lives, their families, their fortunes and their futures on the line by signing their names to the Declaration of Independence. Without them and that single act of defiance, there would be no United States of America.

From this standpoint, I'd say we are very close to being back in the same dire straits that existed in 1776. Thus across the length and breadth of America, patriots are holding "Tea Parties" today in honor of another event from Colonial Days, the Boston Tea Party when patriots made it very clear to their government that they were fed up, dissatisfied and on the brink of revolution.

England didn't pay attention back then. Very much like the current president who seems to be hell bent on digging us deeper into debt, weakening our position internationally and disrespecting the people who put him in office by telling the media he isn't aware of what is going on in the country that elected him to its highest public office.

Speaking of the president, I saw a film clip of him and his entourage boarding the Marine One helicopter on the lawn of the White House for a trip to Camp David for the holiday. That's OK, it is his right and probably his responsibility to get away from the White House for a little down time when he can. And I certainly don't begrudge him the time with family and friends.

But what I didn't like was seeing a Marine officer carrying his luggage to the helicopter! That is not what Marines do. If the president needs someone to carry his luggage, get a staff person to do it. Marine officers exist to lead Marines, not act as luggage handlers.

If you want to know about Marines and Independence Day, try this on for size.

When I began writing Masters of the Art, I had two reasons in mind: to set the record straight about most of us who served in Vietnam and what we did there; and to honor Sgt. Robert F. Starbuck, one of my Parris Island drill instructors, and Col. Paul W. Niesen, my commanding officer in North Carolina and Vietnam.

They both were men of extraordinary leadership qualities and both have impacted my life in ways that I suspect neither imagined back when we were Marines.

Both were unique in their strength of character, not to mention their physical strengths. In fact, a few weeks ago I participated in an event called American Warriors, an evening of theater and music presented by the Veterans Memorial Theatre Company a fledgling group in Connecticut dedicated to theatrical, non-political presentations on the full range of veteran experiences.

I sit on the board of directors and was asked to participate in American Warriors, giving some insight into the Vietnam experience. I read from Masters of the Art, but also spoke about the impact that men such as Sgt. Starbuck and Col. Niesen have on those they lead.

Col. Niesen was named Marine Aviator of the Year in 1969 after we returned from Vietnam for his incredible efforts and successes there. He completed a distinguished career in the Marines, and was honored by those he led at a reunion 20 years after our return from Vietnam.

Sgt. Starbuck was awarded the Silver Star, posthumously, for incredible acts of bravery and leadership when his patrol was under attack in Vietnam in 1967. A special award for exemplary drill field skills was established in Parris Island in Sgt. Starbuck's name after his death, and now his hometown is making sure that he will be remembered in the civilian world too.


Starbuck lived in Montgomery, New York, a small town just north of Interstate 84, and he is remembered fondly, but differently there. For starters, the man that I always referred to as "Sir" which is how it is done at Parris Island - I never even got to call him Sergeant - is remembered in his hometown as "Bobby."

Joe Devine, who knew Sgt. Starbuck before he became a Marine, is leading an effort to permanently memorialize his childhood friend. Joe emailed me about cermonines held on Memorial Day, noting, "We had a great memorial service for Bob Starbuck here on Saturday and our two local historians are working with some of us veterans to further memorialize Bob. We plan to ask out Town to name a new ballfield at our new park in memory of Bob and we also plan to install an educational kiosk about Bob there in his honor."

Joe also wrote an essay on the life of Sgt. Starbuck which included a few other things I didn't know about him: At age sixteen, Bob Starbuck (or Bobby as he was known) raised a Guernsey cow that won first prize at the Orange County, NY Fair and he went on to the NY State Fair at Syracuse with that blue ribbon cow.

The Starbuck home featured a large pond where every area kid was able to swim, complete with the leaches that swimmers of the time tolerated. Bob Starbuck attended the original Montgomery High School, which in his last year of school, became centralized with nearby Walden and Maybrook to become the Valley Central School District.

Bob was a great athlete, competing in baseball, basketball, soccer, and track. Walt Karsten lived near Bob Starbuck and he helped Bob practice his pitching, which were really 100 mph hardballs. Walt reported that each pitch was a stinger even with a good catcher's mitt.

Bob Starbuck was a powerful man, who never abused his size advantage. Bob graduated from Valley Central High School in 1960, attended Orange County Community College and, in 1961 he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps.

At graduation from boot camp at the Marine training facility at Parris Island, Bob Starbuck was selected as the most outstanding recruit in his platoon. Starbuck requested sea duty and he was assigned to the guided missile, light cruiser Little Rock on a voyage to Cuba and the Mediterranean. About a year later, Bob was assigned as a drill instructor (DI) at Parris Island.

The full essay, which I highly recommend, can be read at Joe's website:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~montghistory/

Another of Starbuck's childhood pals, Charlie Wallace, sent this remembrance: I attended the memorial for Bobby Starbuck. Bobby was my cousin. He was six months younger than I.

He is also the reason I am alive today.

When we were young boys (under 10) I fell through the ice on a spring across the road from his house. He pulled me out and got me to the house.

I do not remember much about the incident. I do remember a big down bed and people keeping me warm. I just finished your book, and was very moved by it.

I wasn't able to attend the Memorial Day ceremonies, but there will be another opportunity to honor my late drill instructor at a future date, and you can be sure I will be there.

Part of the reason can be found in the Silver Star citation: The President of the United States takes pride in presenting the Silver Star Medal (Posthumously) to Robert French Starbuck, Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps, for conspicuous gallantry in action while serving with Company A, 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam on February 3, 1967.

By his courage, aggressive fighting spirit and steadfast devotion to duty in the face of extreme personal danger, Sergeant Starbuck upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.

Far too often, the freedoms we enjoy as Americans are taken for granted. Far too often, holidays such as Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Independence Day are seen as an opportunity to have a day off from work, to relax, have a cookout, maybe attend a parade.

But far too often, the reasons we have these holidays and these freedoms are forgotten.

If it's not too much trouble, can you take a minute today to reflect on the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the terrible price that many of them paid, including death, to give us this opportunity at a much better life. And can you take a minute to reflect on the sacrifices of men like Robert F. Starbuck, Col. Niesen and all the members of the Armed Forces who served in the past and are serving to this very day.

Without them, you probably would not be reading this.

One of the most common forms of defense in the world of fighting, from street fighting to boxing to the most exotic martial arts, is the side step.

It is used when a bigger and more aggressive opponent is in a full headlong charge right at you. Rather than standing in front of such opponent and getting flattened, the skilled fighter will sidestep and let the opponent's size, weight and inertia carry him off balance, and often to the ground.

With all the partisan bitchiness,and I mean bitchiness, I heard from Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's opponents and detractors Friday afternoon after she announced that she is stepping down as Alaska's governor this month, it was clear that Palin has THEM off balance! They have been in a full, out-of-control headlong charge, and now they are off balance. Which is exactly the point of the sidestep.

When your opponent goes blowing by you at full speed, and suddenly discovers that his target is no longer in front of him, there is time to decide what to do next and how to do it. It is classic in its simplicity and effectiveness.

Sarah Palin has bought herself some time. She has removed herself, and especially her family, from the direct onslaught of the Socialist Democratic Party which fears her like no other Conservative in America. She, and especially her family, now will be out of the direct line of fire of the Socialist Democrats' propaganda arm, the Mainstream Media, or as Rush Limbaugh now refers to it, the State Run Media.

So many people were blustering about what this all means. So many of her detractors were ready to write her off, and laugh heartily as they did it. Apparently they didn't listen to the last line of her speech.

Quoting the WWII and Korean War General Douglas MacArthur, Palin said, "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."

Does that sound like someone who is walking away from it all? Are you kidding? Didn't you listen? Aren't you parsing her entire speech right now? It's all over the Internet! How much do you need?

Take a look at some of her other quotes. She referred to the non-stop nonsensical, but extraordinarily expensive ethics complaints that have been lodged against her - unsuccessfully - in droves. Rather than continue draining the public treasury to defend herself against these vexatious attacks she has stepped aside, thus depriving her opponents of another target.

Or in her words: "Only dead fish go with the flow."

I guess I understand why the media, including the Alaskan media hates her so much. She calls them out. Palin noted that Alaska is the "crossroads of the world ... the gatekeeper of the continent."

After listing numerous accomplishments of her administration, and victories in the US Supreme Court, Palin added, "You don't hear much of the good stuff in the press anymore though, do ya?"

So naturally one of the first people to comment on her announcement was a reporter from a widely read Anchorage newspaper who immediately began trashing her. Her speech was "Rambling," he said.

The monkey-see, monkey-do political hacks and other media imitators picked up that line immediately. Look for it on all the evening and morning news shows. "Rambling" they'll say, because they are programmed and have no minds of their own.

My money is on Sarah. The media across America is going down the drain, and I bet she has work long after most smarmy Socialist Democrat reporters are long gone.

Buckling under pressure? Not likely.

Side stepping an out of control opponent? Highly likely.

The next thing to do after your out of control opponent goes screaming by you is to hit him hard as hell right in a vital spot. If I was a smarmy reporter for a minuscule Alaskan news outlet, or for that matter, even Vanity Fair, I'd be the one who was ducking and covering.

Sarah Palin has thrown off the chains and she can now call the shots herself. I think that is really good for America, and very bad for smarmy leftist Socialist Democrats and their stooges in the State Run Media.

So the anti-socialists in Congress are now hopelessly outnumbered, since the Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed that seating a clown - failed comedian Al Franken - in the Senate is not only appropriate, it is the voters' will.

I guess in a way there is a perverted logic to all of this. Franken was never funny, couldn't keep a TV or radio job for long, and since all of his jokes and diatribes were left wing, ultra-socialist inspired - and thus not the least bit humorous - he now needs to go on welfare to pay his bills, instead of getting a job.

What better gig than a six-year stint in the Senate where he can't be fired and the voters pay his salary, health care - far better than anything the average voter is getting - retirement, office expenses, staff expenses, travel expenses, family expenses, entourage expenses, lobbyist expenses, campaign expenses, expense expenses and miscellaneous expenses?

Meanwhile the House of Representatives passed the so-called Cap and Trade bill that limits the amount of carbon dioxide that American industries can emit annually, after eight alleged Republicans switched sides and voted with the socialists. I received this composite over the Internet the other day and it fits very nicely right here, don't you think?


Remember these faces the next time they come up for election. They may campaign as Republicans and non-socialists, but now we know better don't we? Don't forget, please.

The cap is intended to reduce so-called Greenhouse Gas emissions that were a big worry during the eight year campaign to oust George Bush from the White House through use of the now debunked Global Warming ruse.

Even though global temperatures are falling like a rock and even though the whole Global Warming scam has been denounced by thousands of non-political reputable scientists worldwide, as opposed to the politically oriented hacks posing as scientists who supported it, the socialist Obama administration and its lackeys in Congress still want Cap and Trade passed. That is even though the two largest polluting countries in the world, India and China, will have nothing to do with it because they know it is a joke.

Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe we have far better, non-polluting forms of energy available to us, and pollution is a very dirty word to me.

But the Socialist Obama administration and his lackeys in Congress are bent on dismantling the capitalist system that has served the United States for 233 years, and replacing it with a failed system that is being cast aside in every country where the individual still has a mind and the ability to use it. But the Socialist Democratic Party couldn't do it even with 60 members of the Senate and a huge majority in the House unless they get a bunch of turncoats to side with them. But that doesn't seem to be a problem now does it?

Which is why I want to know what happened to GOP National Chairman Michael Steele? Oh, I heard him on Fox News the other day taking on Obama and his minions, but that isn't what we need right now.

We need Michael Steele to be jumping ugly - my phrase not his - all over any alleged Republican Representative or Senator who crosses to the other side. Mr. Steele has plenty of ammo to use, namely campaign funds.

The Republican Party in Connecticut where I live has a long history of screwing over people who aren't part of the inner circle of party hacks. Promising help to aspiring candidates who then get left swinging in the breeze when they find out that only some candidates, who get prior approval from D.C., really get any help, is a big joke and a favorite pastime of the Connecticut GOP's inner circle. No kidding, I've seen this time and time again.

So why isn't the national chairman using that power by standing up and calling these people out? Why isn't he letting them know that he can have a big impact on their next election, even at the state level where he can see that a primary opponent gets full support of the national apparatus?

I have been pulling for this guy since before he was even considered a prime contender for the national party's highest office. So let's see what he can do when the chips are down.

I got a request from national for some more money a week or so ago. They even sent me a nicely embossed ID card. But I think I'll wait a bit longer to see how this plays out. If Michael Steele is just going to be another insider with no real regard for the rank and file, he doesn't need my money. He can get it from just about any lobbyist inside the beltway, or at least the Washington Post.

Last year, before the elections, I was asked by many of my college students exactly why I am a Republican instead of a Socialist Democrat. I told them that the core values of the Republican Party, smaller government, lower taxes, less intrusion into our daily lives, less needless regulation, less bureaucracy, more individual freedoms and more individual responsibility, are more to my way of thinking than the values of the Socialist Democrats who now are in power.

I further explained that the Socialist Democrats believe in much bigger government, much higher taxes, much more intrusion into our daily lives, far more needless regulations, far more bureaucracy, fewer individual freedoms and far less individual responsibility. It came as somewhat of a surprise that once my students understood the difference between Republicans and Socialist Democrats they said they tended more toward the GOP than the Socialist Democratic Party.

But if we are going to attract new members to our party and take our country back, we have to have a leader who is willing to engage, and cast out turncoats. So what say Mr. Steele? Can we expect to see you taking a more dramatic approach to turncoats in the near future?

I don't want him to feel he is being pressured over this, but let's face it, the fate of our party and thus the country, is on his shoulders.