Did you ever notice how when you wake up some mornings the world just seems to be a better and brighter place?

Today is one of those days. Scott Brown, the Republican Senate candidate from Massachusetts who only a month ago was given literally no chance of winning, rope-a-doped the Democrats and won a stunning victory yesterday.

He not only wasn't supposed to win, he was supposed to get crushed by the Massachusetts Democratic machine, rivaled only by the Chicago Democratic machine. But Brown didn't just win, he did so with a major margin of victory.

The Dems just took things for granted and even kept making the point that they were entitled to keep the Senate seat because the late Senator Ed Kennedy was its occupant until last year. But Brown did win, he won with a lopsided margin, and what's even better, he said he is ready to get down to Washington, D.C., and get the Dems' handpicked yes man who has been keeping his seat warm out of there.

Ed Rendell, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said on Fox and Friends this morning in response to Brown's victory, that the Dems just haven't given a good enough explanation of what is in the alleged "health care" bill that we all should be only too happy to let pass without so much ado.

Rendell mischaracterized the Republicans as not having an alternative - they do, they have tried to get it up for discussion but the Dems, with an overwhelming majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, have rebuffed them repeatedly. Now that the GOP has enough votes to stall Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's attack on America, Rendell said he will be happy to see the GOP put the brakes on runaway legislation that most Americans oppose.

"Call their bluff. Let them filibuster. Let them speak endlessly," Rendell said of the GOP as if doing so would hurt them. As I noted, he actually thinks that more Americans will fall in love with this effort if we could just see what is actually in the bill!

OK, we don't know what's in the this so-called "Health Care Reform" bill that actually is just a government takeover of the insurance industry? Check this video out.

It's 10 minutes long so be forewarned that you may want to reheat your coffee before you start, and one or two items mentioned in it are included in one version of the bill and not another. But the final version will be put together behind closed doors and you can bet there will be people advocating for taxpayer funded abortion and the so-called "public option" requiring participation by everyone. So this is definitely worth your time.



Not only have the voters in Massachusetts spoken and given us a chance for some reprieve on this but if you haven't noticed, FOX television has launched the 8th season of "24" and it has started off with plenty of action and a winning plot. Kiefer Sutherland is back as Jack Bauer and despite an initial attempt to place him in retirement, it didn't take long to get him back in the saddle.

I forget how many bad guys - and good guys too - have been shot or blown up so far, but let's just say this is an action packed series and I know exactly what I will be doing when it airs for the rest of the season. Isn't it interesting that we cling to a show like 24 in hopes that our country will not be destroyed from without or within, and for the 8 years of the Bush Administration we were exactly that safe?

Now we're all worried and scared about our country and the attacks on it from without and within once again. It sure has been a great year under the Obama Administration! Does he have any accomplishments to speak of on this the first anniversary of his reign?

I bet by now you are asking how all this relates to Rob Simmons.

Well, allow me to elucidate.

Rob, former Republican Congressman from Connecticut's 2nd District, is running for the US Senate against Connecticut's long-time Democratic Attorney General Dick Blumenthal, and just last week was given no chance - in some quarters - of winning in November. Sound familiar?

Rob was way, way ahead of Senator Chris Dodd - as well as the GOP field of challengers which has dwindled considerably in the past month - but then Dodd quit and Blumenthal stepped up, giving Connecticut Democrats a temporary reprieve.

But Blumenthal has no real national or international experience and while he has been a strong consumer advocate - suing damn near everyone who even thought about stiffing the public - he doesn't have any real world business experience. The issues that concerned voters in Massachusetts will continue right through the summer and fall and they don't favor Blumenthal - they favor Rob Simmons.

Rob is a Vietnam veteran, retired US Army Reserves Colonel, with a career in the intelligence field, including a decade as a CIA operative - crucial in the War on Terror.

Rob is an expert on Chinese affairs, and speaks Chinese fluently. China owns a huge chunk of US debt, and we have a terrible balance of trade ratio with the communist giant, which must be rectified for the good of the American public. Blumenthal has no expertise here.

People first and foremost are worried about the economy. Rob was Connecticut's business advocate after narrowly losing his Congressional seat in the 2006 Democratic juggernaut. He is definitely the one candidate on the Connecticut Senate scene who can do what is necessary to recover jobs both in his state and nationally.

The current political and economic climates require candidates who can move seamlessly from state to regional to national and international issues without facing a learning curve. Rob Simmons is the only candidate in the Connecticut Senate race who can do that and as Scott Brown showed in Massachusetts yesterday, no party has the right to assume it is entitled to any political position. Blumenthal's poll numbers are much higher than Dodd's were, but he has yet to be tested. What goes up, comes down.

So stop for a moment to look around you, take a deep breath and remember what you were doing at this moment. All in all, this is a good day for Massachusetts, America, Rob Simmons and especially for fans of 24! Enjoy it.

The race for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts is down to the wire, and Republican Scott Brown has pulled ahead of presumed Ed Kennedy replacement, Democrat Martha Coakley in weekend polling.

So President Barack Obama hurried up to Boston Sunday and instead of pulling out all the stops, proceeded to put a wooden stake right through the heart of Coakley's campaign. That may not have been what he intended, at least consciously, but that is exactly what he did in a speech at Northeastern University Sunday afternoon that is getting damn little Mainstream media attention, and probably because they know how badly it went over.

We can start with the fact that four minutes into his speech Obama still was talking about matters other than the Senate race and what's her name was not even mentioned yet. It appears that the real reason you invite Obama to give is speech is still to give him an opportunity to speak about himself.

Now, let's go back a week when the Democratic candidate mocked Brown for campaigning outside Fenway Park the legendary home of the Boston Red Sox.
That didn't exactly go over well with loyal Red Sox fans, and it got even worse when the Democratic candidate referred to former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling as "a Yankee fan." OOOOHHH, that had to hurt.

But our erstwhile President, in his opening remarks turned to the gaggle of college kids and party minions standing behind him to obligingly clap, cheer or smile on cue, and said "I almost wore my WHITE Sox jacket!" When the kids groaned in unison, obviously not the reaction the campaign was looking for, Obama turned to them and said "You want a guy who's loyal to his hometown team!"

Oh yeah baby! That at least should show that your candidate will never go off to Washington D.C. and forget the folks back home! Um, except someone like Coakley I guess. How can we trust someone who now wants to claim she is loyal to the RED Sox and by extension Red Sox fans, after bashing Fenway Park and calling Schilling a Yankee fan?

Back to Obama, he is still talking about himself nearly five minutes into his speech, still hasn't mentioned the Democratic candidate, but then he mentions Ed Kennedy at about 4:50 and gets only a smattering of a response! He finally does bring up the Democratic candidate at 4:57, but then blows right past her and launches into a tribute to the late Sen. Kennedy.

Did you see the news clips of the debate between Brown and the Democrat last week when one of the Democrat's handlers or handlees called it "Ted Kennedy's seat?" The Republican candidate, Scott Brown immediately pointed out that it is not "Kennedy's seat" it is rather "the people's seat." Well Obama brings that up, even though it was a major score for the Republicans, and then says that the first person who would have agreed with that statement is Kennedy!

Wow! And double Wow! since Coakley got her head handed to her on that one. That's almost as bad as her saying there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan and today, one day before the election, a major battle has broken out between free forces and terrorists right in the heart of downtown Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan!

When Obama finally did get around to talking about the Democratic candidate he tried to portray her not as the remote, aloof, arrogant elitist seen by many Massachusetts voters, but rather as a true representative of the middle class, whose dad owned a small business. Now, let's face it, her Dad's small business would go right out of business under the leadership of the Obama administration which has been solidly in place for a year and has driven the country down into the abyss. But he still claims she understands the plight of working families!

But here is where it got to be fun. When Obama finally does start actually talking about the Democrat rather than himself or the late Ed Kennedy, at about 8:30 into his speech, he gets interrupted by a heckler! A college kids starts yelling something that isn't clear on the audio, but it is so effective that Obama stops talking and keeps telling the audience "We're okay." But he wasn't because Obama loses a full two minutes of his speech to the heckler - and to the audience that then attempted to stifle the heckler by chanting the Democrat's name.

President Obama even left the podium briefly, and it was obvious that he was not happy. But get this - as soon as the male college student is removed, he is replaced by a woman heckler who starts up with her issues as soon as the first one is ushered out!

Not exactly a positive appearance.

Obama admitted that he doesn't know Brown, and doesn't know anything about Brown's record, and then reminds people that the economy stinks - thanks to his failed "economic stimulus" bills. Acknowledging the failures of his administration, and hoping to save the day by using his time tested audience hypnotizing skills - moving his gaze back and forth, back and forth, hoping to lull the crowd into submission, Obama said, "Progress is slow (right side profile) and it can't come fast enough (left side profile) for people who need help right now."

"At times like this (right side profile) there are always some (left side profile) who are eager to exploit that pain and anger (right side profile) to score a few political points. (Left side profile.) There are always folks who - you know - (right side profile) think that the - (left side profile) the best way to - solve these problems are to demonize others (right side profile.)"

Talk about demonizing campaign ads, remember Obama on his own campaign trail, "would you take you child to the hospital for an asthma attack ...?" When you consider the viciousness of the attack ads the Democrats ran against Brown in Massachusetts this weekend it is amazing that Obama would even mention the subject.

I swear I can't figure out whether he loves the sound of his own voice more than he loves seeing film clips of himself in profile or vice versa.

Coakley, the Democrat, is spending her last campaign day whining that "right wing extremist groups" were the first to do negative advertising, which is why she decided to hit back with below the belt, offensively inaccurate negative ads of her own.

"They're distorting my record," she complained, apparently believing that gives her the right to lie about Brown's. And let's not forget that she lied about not seeing a journalist attacked right in front of her by one of her own staff members in D.C., last week.

When Schilling was asked on FOX News today what he would say to her if she was in the room with him, Schilling responded, "Good luck on your next job."

Coakley seems to like the D.C. night scene. I bet she gets hired as a lobbyist. Unless, with a stake through her heart and no national health care to pay to remove it, she turns to dust.

A subplot of the movie Office Space involves three programmers inserting a computer virus into their firm's accounting system to surreptitiously transfer fractions of a penny to a secret bank account hundreds if not thousands of times each day.

Their theory holds that in any transactions resulting in balances figured down to fractions of a cent, which is common in their firm, the accounting department rounds down for simplicity sake, leaving daily balances that no one notices. What the accounting department doesn't need certainly wouldn't be missed, especially if the virus took only a little bit each day.

The conspirators figured that after several years they would be rich and no one would be the wiser. Movies being what they are, the chief code writer in the group misplaces a decimal point and the results are not at all what they expected.

I bring this up because all the polls in Massachusetts, which rivals Chicago for corruption in politics, are showing a very, very close race for the US Senate seat that opened up after Democrat Ed Kennedy died.

Scott Brown, the Republican candidate, is smart, clean, articulate and swarming all over the once insurmountable lead in the polls no longer being enjoyed by the Democrat's handpicked successor to Kennedy, Martha Coakley. Coakley is on the ropes for being a puppet of special interests, and a status quo Democrat who will continue to tax and spend with no regard to the wishes of Massachusetts voters.

The special election is next Tuesday and both sides are working to get the win. Brown is surging while Coakley hopes she can hold him off for a few more days - but the spread is razor thin, well within the margin of error. The race is considered a toss up and could go down to the wire. So what will be the deciding factor in which side wins?

Considering that we're talking about Massachusetts, perhaps the vote counters will determine the race. Not the people - the machines. What with the movement away from mechanical voting machines to optical scanners that operate based on commands from computer programs, it would be wise for Republicans who are making a massive effort on Brown's behalf to keep a very close eye on the scanners on election day.

How can pre-programmed computerized vote counters change the outcome of an election you may be asking?

Well, you start long before election day, by writing what amounts to a virus into the program that gives instructions to the software that in turn gives instructions to the hardware that displays the counts.

Say for instance that you have a precinct in which about 5,000 people vote in one day, at a polling place that is open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. That is 14 hours, times 60 minutes per hour, or a total of 840 minutes. That means that 6 people per minute have to vote in that precinct, every minute of the day, which further means that a vote has to be cast every 10 seconds from the instant the polls open at 6 a.m. until 8 p.m.

There should be massive lines at the polling place ALL DAY LONG because 5,000 people voting in one spot is one hell of a lot of people - even when they are spread out over 14 hours.

Now, let's say that on election day the polls are dead even - and the other polls, where you actually cast a vote, are manned by loyal Ed Kennedy Democrats, working like they should, bantering with their Republican counterparts, but knowing they may not have a public trough patronage job tomorrow unless the handpicked Kennedy successor wins. They'll probably be pacing back and forth all day long, really working for a change, calling in all registered Democrats. They'll be hoping against hope that the Independents, Tea Party supporters and Republicans didn't see a video proving that the handpicked Kennedy successor lied about not seeing a crime take place right in front of her in D.C. the previous week, or another showing her saying something really stupid about the status of terrorism in the world. Such people might be worried about the outcome of the race.

Unless the race is in a state where the vote scanners have a virus in the program that automatically advances the count for the "appropriate" candidate 3 percent of the time. Meaning each time 100 votes are cast, the counter "slips" and adds three votes on the Democrat side.

If you have ever been at a busy precinct, and remember a precinct with 5,000 people voting in one day is a very, very busy precinct, you'll know that the poll workers are far too busy checking off names, handling questions and dealing with problems to stand next to the scanner all day making sure the counts don't mysteriously skip ahead.

In fact, considering that a precinct where 5,000 people vote can have no down times, and I mean none if that many people are to go through in one session, everyone will be too busy all day long to check the count after each ballot is scanned. What really will happen is that there will be lines getting in, starting probably at 5 a.m., then lines at the check-in desks, then lines at the tables where the ballots are filled out, then lines at the scanner(s) as people submit them before leaving.

There should be lines of cars coming in - ALL DAY LONG - and lines of cars waiting to leave - ALL DAY LONG. There should be a poll worker standing near each scanner, making sure that if there are problems or questions they can be handled quickly to keep the lines moving. But it is not likely they will be watching the counters.

In fact, the media, which can successfully be used to assist in this scenario, is very helpful in that reporters like to know what the count is at certain milestones - say at 9 or 10 a.m., and again after lunch, just before the dinner hour and of course at the end of the night. Poll watchers are very helpful to the media in that they only have to glance at the counter on the machine that tells how many votes have been cast at any point in the day. The reporters will report long lines before the polls opened, give a count at mid-morning, then disappear until early evening when they'll come back to get the results.

In their absence, voters should have been moving steadily through the process at a rate of 6 per minute all day long, until all 5,000 have voted. If the media asks about the final tally, the head poll worker will just give the number showing on the the scanner and that will be that.

The only way to find out if the number registered by the scanner counter is accurate is to go through the check-in logs and manually count each person who was logged in. The chances of this happening on a widespread basis are virtually zero.

Want to know why?

Because if the program for either the scanner, or the counting system if it is separate, is tweaked to give a 3 percent preference to one party over another, in a precinct where 5,000 votes were cast, the counter would add three extra votes every time 100 ballots were scanned, or about once every 15 minutes. The final outcome would be 2,584 to the winner and 2,416 to the loser if 5,000 votes were cast. (I realize these numbers are approximate, so don't get all squirrely with me. It is the principle I'm talking about here.)

If that number, or something close to it, came up - and was mirrored across the state - the pundits and pollsters would all go "SEE, it was within the margin of error just like we predicted. But the Republican just couldn't pull it off in such a Democrat leaning state."

And while the results would be within the margin of error that the polls predicted, they would be way outside the margin where a recount is required - usually if the results are closer than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes. If they aren't within that percentage, the challenging party usually has to pay for the recount, which is quite expensive and usually discouraged, especially in the absence of serious evidence of chicanery.

The chances of poll workers coming back in to spend days going through the manual check-in logs, and more days going through the paper ballots are highly unlikely unless ordered by a judge or required by law. Again, everyone would be saying "close but no cigar" and telling the loser to buck up and stop looking like a spoil sport.

Do I think this could happen this Tuesday in Massachusetts? I don't know, what do you think?

As far as possibility, political bosses who prefer to rule through power and manipulation rather than reason and performance have been finding ways to steal elections ever since Democracy first came on the scene.

I suppose a stolen election can happen anywhere, including Massachusetts this Tuesday.

But to see that it isn't stolen, at least through a scenario of this sort, the Massachusetts GOP chairman should order the Republican committees in every community to check the scanners at every polling place in their jurisdiction. (This is done by running a known number of test ballots, with a known number of votes for each position, through the scanners - and the backup scanners - before the actual voting starts.) I would use more than 100 ballots, maybe 500 would be better, and I would do the test between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., just before the polls open.

Then I would keep GOP poll watchers stationed near the scanners all day to discourage tampering. Then I would run another test right after the results are announced, but before the machines are moved out of the polling place.

Excessive? Unnecessary? Well, not if you consider that the fate of the free world hangs in the balance. I'm not kidding. Americans need to know that their government is responsive, and if it isn't that they can change it. What better place for that to be shown than in Massachusetts on Tuesday?

Just when it seemed that the Republican Party was headed for a complete overhaul of the joke that calls itself the US Congress, a half-handful of GOP insiders has risen up in high dudgeon attempting to divide the party against itself before the fall elections.

The target of these "inside-the-beltway" malcontents is none other than GOP National Chairman Michael Steele.

A so-far mostly anonymous group, referred to by Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday today as "GOP staff" are ticked off at Steele because he accepted speaking fees at non-party functions, and he wrote a book outlining how to bring the party and the country back from the brink without asking for input from his critics.

Steele's "crime" appears to be that he didn't ask permission to act like a chairman, as well as an independently thinking businessman.

Michael Steele
Illegitimi non carborundum!


I wonder if the fact that he is a black man has anything to do with this anonymous criticism? What's the matter boys, doesn't Mr. Steele know "his place?" I do. It's right up in front of the national Republican Party and anyone who doesn't like that can stop hiding behind their staffers' skirts, stand up and speak up - in public - or as Mr. Steele advised several times this week, "shut up!"

That doesn't seem likely from at least half the sources of the criticism directed at Steele. According to the Washington Post, "three top GOP congressional aides ... would only describe their bosses' communications with the Republican National Committee chairman on condition of anonymity."

So at least half of the malcontents apparently are aides to "top" Congressional Republicans, who are posing as representatives of the entire Republican Party.

I have a question. Are these "aides" working for blowhards, spendthrifts or maybe even a pervert or two? After all, such is the nature - in one incarnation or another - of many of the existing GOP members of Congress. Are they the frontmen for the same people who drove the GOP into a chasm of disrespect and despair?

If so I agree once again with Steele's reply to their puling comments. "Shut up!"

Steele, said on FNS today that he made more than 400 appearances as party chairman in the nearly a year since his election, averaging better than one a day. Steele also said he made a dozen non-party speeches last year, some of which were paid events and some were not. So?

This is the party of business, right? George W. Bush said as much when he was president. But we're going to blast our own chairman for doing business, none of which apparently interfered with his duties as chairman?

Are these people serious? I guess not, and from this oh-so-timely eruption of "criticism" we further get a really good idea of why the party was in such disarray before Steele came on board. Can you honestly disagree with Steele for charting his own course when the people who preceded him did such a lousy job?

The Post also reported that Republican Congressional staffers are trying to get Republican Party staffers to get Steele on track, on message, in other words to say what they want him to say instead of what he believes. Sorry about that Charlies. If you don't have a winning record, and the current makeup of the GOP in Congress has anything but, then you don't get to make the rules. (My staff can beat your staff with one staff tied behind their backs?)

All in all I've only seen three of Steele's critics named. All three just happen to be former RNC Chairmen, which isn't something I'd brag about considering the state of the party in Congress, not to mention the public view of it. Of course they have a right to complain, but I think the media also has an obligation to give us some background into who they are, and especially their "records" when running the party and working as official lapdogs to the Democrats.

I have a few questions for those who are criticizing Mr. Steele, especially anonymously. Does he believe in smaller government? Does he believe in less government intrusion? Does he believe in lower taxes as a means to stimulate small business, big business and in-between business? Does he believe in lower taxes as a means of giving more people more control over their own finances? Does he believe in personal responsibility rather than government control over increasing amounts of our lives? Does he believe in a strong national defense and taking the War on Terror to the terrorists rather than letting them bring it to us?

I believe the answer to all of these questions is yes. Which means the Chairman is a Republican and doing what a chairman should be doing to bring our point of view to prevail. If he is more honest than some would prefer, if he says things that some believe don't reflect the best public relations approach, then disagree him like men and women of character, in his office, where these conversations should be taking place, and hash out your differences.

But going out in public on one hand, and hiding behind a cloak of anonymity on the other, is not only disrespectful and counterproductive for the overall good of the party, it is cowardly.

Wallace said "GOP staffers" are calling Steele a "loose cannon."

I disagree totally. If he is in fact a cannon, then the problem these "staffers" have is that he isn't letting them aim it. He is the man who is deciding where his fire will be directed, and apparently, some of that fire is coming uncomfortably close to people who say they are Republicans but are standing alongside the Democrats.

If I was chairman Steele I'd keep right on doing what he's doing.

When he was elected last January, Mr. Steele said he would prefer that as Republicans we concentrate on the 80 percent of things we agree about, rather than the 20 percent we don't. I don't know if I agree with Steele on 80 percent of the issues facing us or only 20 percent, but I do know that he is out in front of the party, leading by example, and working day and night to reverse the Roman-Empire like decline of the United States of America.

Unless and until I see otherwise, I'm sticking with the man who is upfront and unafraid, not the six critics who have the temerity to claim they are speaking for the entirety of the Republican Party. Thus far I see Michael Steele doing the party's business. The problem a few people seem to have is that he is not doing the party's business as usual.

And if I had any advice for the chairman it would go something like this: Illegitimi non carborundum!

A new book describing the backroom deals and manipulations that led to the Barack Obama presidency also quotes Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as making racial slurs about Obama.

Reid, rather than challenging the book's accuracy immediately went on a Mea Culpa offensive Saturday, apologizing profusely for being outed as a bigoted slug who says one thing about minorities in public, but in private is nothing more than a latter day Simon Legree. (If you haven't read Uncle Tom's Cabin recently, the Simon Legree
character was a vicious slave owner who actually was born in the north. The name now is synonymous with cruelty, greed and anti-black sentiments.)

Legree's - uh, excuse me - Reid's classless, disgusting, Reconstruction Era slurs immediately caused an eruption - of deafening silence - from the National Racial Police, including Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I guess it's OK to be a racist so long as you keep the hush money coming. But God help you if you think the role of government is to make sure all citizens have equal opportunities rather than serving as a bottomless pit of financial largess.

Those two alleged men of the cloth - sans churches - who usually hit the airwaves demanding firing squads for any Independents, Republicans and Tea Party members who make similar errors immediately went on the airwaves this time to defend their benefactor.

Wait a minute, I'm not sure I've heard anything that blatantly offensive from Independents, Republicans or Tea Party members. At least not in the Post-Racial Era. Do you? I do remember a black Tea Party member being attacked and beaten by SEIU thugs who seemed to be working as a form of fascist security for Democratic office holders.

But I don't remember any such attacks on black people from anyone other than Democrats. Let's review history. Who freed the slaves? A Republican. Who backed Civil Rights legislation? The Republicans. Who opposed Civil Rights legislation? The Democrats.

Who referred to Obama's physical characteristics in racial terms while discussing his electability? Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Senate. Reid reportedly said that Obama might be electable because he was sufficiently light-skinned and didn't use "Negro dialect" unless he wanted to.

Now, is Obama more offended by Reid's comments he made about the president's appearance, or because Reid let the cat out of the bag that Obama can slip into "Negro" vernacular when he thinks the situation warrants it? That's a question that's worth following up I think.

President Obama accepted Reid's hasty apology Saturday, and national democrats closed ranks around him. Tim Kaine, the Democratic governor of Virginia, told FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace today that Reid's comments about Obama were actually "positive" although his choice of words was "unfortunate."

But Republican National Chairman Michael Steele stood up for the GOP, and frankly for all black Americans, especially those who voted for Obama, by calling for Reid to step down. Steele, who is black, and I shouldn't have to say that, made the point that if the GOP is going to toe the line on race issues, then the Democrats should also.

Kaine, who is white, continued to defend Reid throughout the segment, and said he should not be required to step down.

If GOP Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said the same thing (as Reid) Steele said, the attitude of the Democrats and their media lackeys would be extreme indignation. I'm paraphrasing here, but that was the intent of his comments.

I wonder what Don Imus thinks of Reid's comments and the way Sharpton and Jackson are kissing Reid's ass instead of demanding it on a platter? Imus lost his job at CBS radio for making slurs about black women on a college basketball team, with Jackson and Sharpton leading the charge against him.

We can infer from these situations that it is allowable to dump a Jew who errs, but not Democratic political leaders who keep the financial flood gates open. Is the hypocrisy of this lost on anyone? Yes, the media, but other than that?

I think not, and I hope this is the issue that puts Reid over the cliff into the great abyss of political obscurity. Reid already has Chris Dodd-like poll numbers in his home state of Nevada where he is up for re-election this year, and this certainly won't help.

I wonder what Legree-Reid says about Nancy Pelosi behind closed doors? I bet he calls her "sweetie."

Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd who has been ignoring the handwriting on the wall for better than a year now, finally came to his senses and announced today that he won't seek another term in the US Senate. Hooray!

Every conceivable poll that measured the race for the past year said that Dodd was so far behind his foremost Republican challenger, former Congressman Rob Simmons, that all Dodd could see was the settling remains of Simmons' dust cloud far, far ahead.





ROB SIMMONS





But even though Simmons is the only Republican in the Senate race with a real chance of winning, and the only one with a consistent double-digit lead over Dodd literally from the moment he declared his candidacy, most reporters and pundits are giving equal status to Johnny-come-lately quasi-Republican challenger, Linda McMahon. Her name is familiar to many who watch "professional" wrestling on television, especially the "matches" promoted by World Wrestling Entertainment, and have seen her in various soap opera-like encounters with wrestlers, promoters and even her own family!

If you aren't familiar with Mrs. McMahon please check out the video below.



But even though Mrs. McMahon, wife of WWE honcho Vince McMahon, has some business acumen through her experience as CEO of the WWE, she is not even certain what party she belongs to, or where her loyalties will be by the time the election comes around. Mrs. McMahon for years made far more donations to Democrats than to Republicans, including Barack Obama's current chief of staff Rham Emanuel, the architect of Obama's policies on terrorism, health insurance, and his takeover of American industries.

Democrats have been licking their chops for months that Mrs. McMahon will win the GOP nomination. They love to point out that she wants the $174,000 per year Senate seat so badly that she has vowed to spend up to $30 million of her own money to win it. (We can only wonder how much she would spend if she had the unlimited resources of the US Treasury - funded by taxpayers - to dip into.)

Pundits continually refer to her willingness to spend so much money to buy the election as a reason to give her better than even chances of beating Simmons in a primary. Personally, I think Connecticut's Republican voters are smarter than that, can't be bought by a RINO - Republican In Name Only - and the pundits are giving her as much ink and face time as possible in hopes that she will spread a ton of that $30 million in their news organization's advertising department.

Polls show that Simmons can hold his own against other Democratic challengers too, although the Dems claim - through use of skewed internal polling - that someone other than Dodd can beat any Republican. That someone is likely to be Connecticut Atty. General Richard Blumenthal, arguably the most visible politician in the state, and certainly one with tremendous name recognition.

But this is shaping up to be a really, really bad year for the Democrats what with the ongoing antics in Washington, D.C., compounded by Connecticut's dismal economy, and a state legislature that is as unmindful of Connecticut voters as the Reid-Pelosi dominated US Congress is of the rest of America. Connecticut is running deficits in the billions, after posting billion dollar surpluses only a couple of years ago, neither of which set well with the voters. Being a Democrat in Connecticut this year is not an automatic ticket to victory.

There is more to the matchup than party loyalties however. America is in deep trouble with its balance of trade deficits, runaway spending in Congress, a renewed vigor among Islamic terrorists due to a fawning White House policy, and we especially are in trouble with our debt to China.

America currently owes about $1.3 trillion to China through bond purchases and other forms of debt. Recent news reports say the Chinese economy is not as robust as has been portrayed for the past several years, and it is quite possible that it could call in its debts, putting America into instant bankruptcy.

How will McMahon or Blumenthal handle such a situation? Are either of them qualified to negotiate with China and other antagonistic governments on either business or military matters? No, they aren't.

But Simmons is highly qualified to be point man on Chinese affairs and other issues facing us overseas. He spent 10 years as CIA operative with heavy experience in the Far East. He spent four years in Vietnam, is a retired US Army Reserve Colonel with 30 years of military intelligence analysis on his resume, and Simmons speaks fluent Chinese!

Connecticut, and the rest of America, need now as much as any other time in our history to send representatives to Washington who understand what is going on worldwide, as well as in their own backyards. We need people who can see the real world situation and realize the failures of the Democratic administration - including recent reverses in the War on Terror and homeland security, nuclear aspirations of countries like Iran, releasing terrorists from Guantanamo, trying terrorists as criminals rather than enemy combatants, and driving our economy deeper into the red. We need a seasoned veteran who will work effectively to bring America back from the brink where we now are teetering.

When he was a Congressman Simmons took the lead in preventing the closing of the New London submarine base, saving approximately 37,000 jobs in a state that is leaking jobs like a sieve. As the state's business advocate Simmons worked tirelessly to help small businesses cut through government red tape and successfully negotiate the minefields of taxes and government regulations.

As a Senate candidate he alone actually has real world experience in the areas where America most needs experience and results. We need a Senator who can start work immediately to turn back the past year's disastrous performance by Congress and the Obama Administration, not simply go along with it as Dodd did and would have done.

A freshman Democrat is not going to Washington to tell Barack Obama that he doesn't get it. Under that scenario Connecticut and America both lose.

Linda McMahon will soon have to face questions about accepting millions of dollars in tax breaks for her business while she also reduced the WWE's workforce; she will have to explain her support for "stimulus" spending that seems only to have helped people in non-existent zip codes and phantom businesses; and she will be under fire for heading up the largest organization representing a highly questionable "sport."

She will need more than $30 million just to explain herself to Connecticut voters.

Simmons has been through the wringer many times before. He has been vetted and passed with flying colors. Simmons is running because he has much to offer Connecticut as its next Senator, and much to offer the rest of America as an expert on foreign affairs, especially in the areas where we now are most vulnerable.

I don't want wealth redistribution, I don't want to drive a government-designed "green" putt-putt, and I don't want to hear any more of this global warming hysteria. I want security for myself, my family and my country, a return to a growing economy, and I want representation by a person with experience in the areas that will provide them.

When Linda McMahon is placed under a microscope, the bloom will quickly wear off the rose. Dick Blumenthal has been an able and competent Attorney General for Connecticut, but I don't see his skill set translating to anti-terrorist security or head-to-head dealings with the Chinese.

Rob Simmons on the other hand, not only can deliver, he has done it throughout his entire career.

I read three books between Christmas and New Year's Day and in one of those unexplained circumstances of life they all are related - especially regarding politics and communism in the mid-1940s. (I didn't start out with that intent.)

Venona, on the deciphering of a series of cables between communist espionage directors in the Soviet Union and America, has been on my list for some time. The National Security Agency operation code-named Venona ultimately verified the identities of a number of communist spies in America.

I also found two surprises from the same era by the late Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Bill Mauldin, who drew the Willie and Joe cartoons that gained widespread fame during World War II. Mauldin was wounded in the Italian campaign and did most of his work from the battlefield in Italy, resulting in his first book Up Front.

After the war, in the year before I was born, he wrote Back Home, detailing his struggles in making the leap from a young, but experienced combat soldier, to a young adult who was totally inexperienced in civilian life. I was literally transfixed by Mauldin's books, but not due to his adjustment struggles.

When he came home Mauldin's natural affinity for the foot soldier, coupled with his animosity toward rear echelon wannabes, overlords and stuffed shirt senior brass resulted in his declarations of leftist tendencies, which he detailed in Back Home. I was pleasantly surprised to see him attack news editors who wrote Page One headlines bashing veterans for being involved in minor infractions, while veteran successes were relegated to one paragraph briefs on the back pages. I thought that was a condition peculiar to the Vietnam vets of my generation, but it is obvious that media condescension and arrogance are a multi-generational issue.

Mauldin also spoke highly of the Russian soldiers and the Russian people in general who fought so many bitterly contested battles against the Nazis - with ultimate losses in the range of 20 million killed. Like many Americans at that time he wanted much better relations with the Soviet Union. America appeared to be only marginally aware of the savage abuses of the Stalin years, and the Iron Curtain had not yet slammed down over Eastern Europe or even Germany. In fact the phrase "Iron Curtain" had not yet been popularized by Winston Churchill when Mauldin wrote Back Home.

Mauldin may have been sympathetic toward the Russian people, but make no mistake, he was no communist. He blasted Soviet Ambassador Andrei Gromyko, who lived in a swank Park Avenue building, while so many of his communist countrymen were living in squalor. Mauldin also exposed Gromyko for walking blithely through a union picket line to attend a function in a New York hotel.

Mauldin disliked communists as much as he disliked Nazis and fascists, but he was brutally honest about America's failures too. He advocated for racial equality, and opposed Jim Crow laws. But he did not favor a welfare state, writing instead that he wanted equality for black Americans so they would have an equal chance at the successes American freedom promises. In today's political parlance Mauldin probably would be labeled a Blue Dog Democrat.

Mauldin's observations on communist responses to the revelations of savagery and slaughter in the Soviet Union remind me very much of the Obama Administration's methodology for dealing with criticism of its myriad failures in its first year. Basically, point the finger of blame at someone else, shift the subject matter to something else, and feign ignorance.

He wrote: "People who are well indoctrinated in communist methods of discussion have a wonderful system for putting their opponents on the defensive ... . Instead of answering questions, they counter with other questions. Instead of defending themselves against accusations, they make counter accusations."

This was written in 1945/46! Now, go to the website of any network or cable news outlet that has a Sunday political talk show and see what Obama's minions had to say today about the failures of Homeland Security Christmas Day; releasing terrorists from Guantanamo and sending them to Yemen; the government takeover of the financial, auto and medical insurance industries; and nearly incomprehensible levels of debt Obama has levied on Americans.

"Bush did it; Bush did it; Bush did it!" And "America Sucks and We Need People To Love Us!"

Look at Obama's response to the successful Christmas Day terrorist attack on an overseas airliner just before it landed in Detroit. The would-be bomber failed only because he didn't know the properties of the explosive he was using. But he did set it off, and it did cause a fire inside the aircraft. Obama took days to speak to the American public about the bombing - after all, he is still on vacation in Hawaii and his golf and tennis games take precedence.




THE BUCK STOPS WHERE?

BUCK YOU AMERICA!



When critics blasted his first speech as being blase and unconcerned he came out a second time - last Tuesday - sternly lecturing the press that he had demanded a full report on the incident and he expected it on his desk by Thursday! What he didn't mention was the obvious - he was in Hawaii and his desk is back in Washington, D.C.

But to hear his apologists Sunday, take for instance John Brennan, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser who appeared on FOX News Sunday, Obama is the model of an engaged, aware, determined Chief Executive. Yeah, and I'm Mother Teresa.

According to Brennan, everything is complicated, and no one is to be held accountable for their actions or words - except George Bush. Terrorists being released from Guantanamo are going right back to the battlefield? Hell man, Bush did it!

Closing Guantanamo is desirable because it is a great propaganda tool for the terrorists? Aside from the fact that as long as terrorists are in Guantanamo they aren't attacking us, it is no secret that the reason we are being attacked is that our whole, entire, top-to-bottom lifestyle and set of beliefs are propaganda tools for the terrorists. They hate us, they hate our government, they hate our religious freedoms, they hate that women have rights, they hate everything we do! Wouldn't the lousy security response at the airports be used as propaganda? How about 9-11? Wasn't the success there a nice recruiting tool?

Propaganda? If we want good propaganda that will put a crimp in these continuing attacks we can put Guantanamo out of business by shooting all the jihadists on the battlefield so we don't need a place for POWs.

Meanwhile we are running away in Yemen, closing our Embassy because someone made a threat! Brennan says we shouldn't be making national security a political issue but then we learn that top Republicans on the Intelligence subcommittee aren't even being briefed on matters of immediate concern.

Hell, if we have threats on our embassy, we should evacuate dependents and non-essential personnel, and load the place up with sharpshooters and pork innards. Let the SOBs attack and get sent to jihadist hell. Shoot every damn one of them and then smear them with pig guts. Allah will love them for that.

One last item on the Obama view of the New Year. Want to see what the media was purposely ignoring over the Obama Hiatus? Check this out from my Internet friends.

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.


In the dead of night on December 17, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama placed the United States of America under the authority of the international police organization known as INTERPOL, granting the organization full immunity to operate within the United States.

By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act requests.

What, exactly does this mean? It means that INTERPOL now has the full authority to conduct investigations and other law enforcement activities on U.S. soil, with full immunity from U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.

For informational purposes: Interpol was founded in Austria in 1923 as the International Criminal Police. After Nazi Germany annexed Austria in 1938, Interpol became a Nazi terrorist unit, and its headquarters were moved to Berlin in 1942. From 1938 to 1945, four heads of Interpol included Nazi generals who headed the Secret Police - the SS, which included the dreaded Gestapo. One of their primary functions was ferreting out people of Jewish descent or religion, and sending them to the concentration camps and gas chambers.

After the end of World War II in 1945, the organization was revived as the International Criminal Police Organization. Its headquarters is located in Lyon, France. It is supposedly politically neutral and its constitution forbids involvement in crimes that do not overlap several member countries or in any political, military, religious, or racial crimes.

However, it does investigate, arrest and apprehend people on crimes involving public safety, terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. You know, all the stuff that the Obamanation has accused the Bush Administration of committing.

I really don't see Interpol overpowering the Secret Service guards protecting the former president and vice president and hauling them off to The Hague to stand trial on War Crimes charges over the war in Iraq.

But for the rest of the American populace Interpol also involves itself in drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption. There should be plenty to keep Interpol busy for the remaining three years of the Obama dynasty. In fact, I bet Interpol agents can find a lot to keep them busy without ever leaving the Obama Administration!

Are we all breathing easier now?