Winter's Soldier Story

Florida Debate Showcases Santorum, Paul; Others Not So Hot

2012-01-28T14:24:00.003-05:00

If you didn't watch the GOP presidential debate Thursday night, hosted by CNN, and your only input on how it went came from news reports, you could be excused for thinking that Mitt Romney had a great night.

He didn't and neither did Newt Gingrich, and I say that as a teacher of communications and public speaking at the college level. I was not impressed by either and many people with whom I have spoken since, who did view the debate, had much the same impression.

It was a dismal debate performance for Romney and Gingrich and reinforces the question that many Republicans have been asking for months now; why are GOP candidates subjecting themselves to debates hosted by liberal moderators who are in Obama's camp and want him re-elected? It was dismal because both Gingrich and Romney came across as spoiled brats who absolutely, positively had to get the last word.

Totally childish, hardly presidential.

The actual winners clearly were Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, although their performances may not translate to enough votes in the Florida primary on Tuesday to change the outcome. Florida's primary is winner take all, and both Paul and Santorum appear to be too far back in the polls to make much of a difference. (I use the word "appear" because the polls we have been assaulted with for the past week are incomplete, have huge margins of error, and probably are no closer to accurate than they were in Iowa.)

Nonetheless, Santorum came across as a knowledgeable adult who admonished both Gingrich and Romney to knock off their childishness and petty personal sniping, and stick to the issues.

Paul showed a sense of humor and grasp of reality that has been missing in previous debates, usually because he gets off on his foreign relations tangent and loses the audience. That didn't happen Thursday night, and instead he had a great one-liner and a shot at the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, that were very well received.

Paul's best one liner came when Blitzer asked him what he thought of Gingrich's plan to restart the space program and build a colony on the moon by 2020. Paul responded that other than sending some politicians to the moon, he didn't think it was a good idea, which the audience loved.

When Blitzer took a shot at Paul's age by asking whether he could reasonably expect to survive four years as president, Paul challenged everyone on stage to a 25-mile bike ride, and then warned Blitzer "You know we have age discrimination laws, so you'd better watch out."

But as is often the case in these debates, Gingrich and Romney had far more face time than the other two candidates and used it in non-stop bashing of each other. In fact, when Gingrich attempted to call a truce and stick to the issues, Romney acted like a petulant prima donna and refused.

You can blame both of these candidates for their gutter tactics, but I think it bears repeating that it was Romney who started the war by dumping $3.5 million in negative ads on Gingrich's head in Iowa, which led to a Santorum victory, although you wouldn't know that by the media coverage.

Yet, ever since Iowa, the fighting between Romney and Gingrich has taken center stage and seems to lead the news at every hour of the day. This even when Americans are being taken hostage in Egypt and Obama is proposing massive cuts in our military at the same time our biggest adversary, China, is going in the opposite direction.

Instead of news, we get character assassination.

In fact, I was contacted Friday by a close associate who lives and works in Florida and was told that the debate Thursday night solidified his decision to vote for Paul, even if it is only a protest vote. And he is not alone.

"The air down here is poisoned with attack ads," he told me, and the negative impression he was getting from both Gingrich and Romney was only reinforced by their actions at the debate.

Romney has been lauded by the media which has all but anointed him as the GOP candidate - caucuses, primaries and conventions be damned - but he actually came across as a petulant sixth-grader in his snit over Gingrich's attacks on his record and his money.

Gingrich for his part, came across exactly as he shouldn't have when he proposed to space agency workers that he would restart our space program that was shut down last year by Obama, and colonize the moon by the end of his second term as president.

It was bad enough that Romney accused him of interstate pandering by promising needed projects to residents of every state where he campaigns, but Gingrich should have seen the jokes at his expense coming from the far side of the moon.

It didn't take even one news cycle for a FOX News commentator to refer to Gingrich as a "lunatic" pun intended, hah, hah, hah.

Let's put aside the hypocrisy of the media that two generations ago lauded President John F. Kennedy for his vision of putting an American on the moon ahead of the Russians, both for national pride and security.

Let's put aside the fact that modern technology and understanding of our universe have gone light years further than they would have in the same time without all the research and development that went into our space program.

Let's just focus on the fact that our space program, such as it is, now is run by the Russians and the Chinese, neither of whom can reasonably and reliably be considered friends or allies. What the hell is wrong with our country when we concede the effort to benefit from the exploration of space to the two countries on this earth who would still love to see us crushed and groveling in the dirt?

Romney said he would fire anyone who proposed a moon colony to him. I think a functioning colony might be outside the grasp of our current financial status in the next eight years, but a controlled effort to do it should not be ridiculed. On that issue Romney should be fired for failing to grasp international intrigue and lacking imagination and vision.

Gingrich also has a problem here, and it is one that surfaced earlier in the campaign but was ignored by most of the media. Gingrich is a highly intelligent man, but his intelligence seems to be focused in philosophical concepts without a corresponding level of ability in the technical or scientific arenas.

In short, Gingrich's intelligence doesn't make math as easy and natural to him as government and politics.

Someone should have told him that even mentioning the moon in the current political environment would leave him wide open to media assaults, not to mention ridicule from Romney and his supporters. Gingrich would have won the hearts of space workers simply by vowing to put them back on the payroll without going Kennedyesque.

But he did and now he will have to live with it.

We can only hope that in the remaining 46 states (or 53 if you are an Obama supporter - thank you Sarah Palin) our GOP candidates take a deep breath, and in the case of Romney and Gingrich start acting like adults and leaders instead of spoiled children in a school yard fight.

One debate does not a campaign make, but frankly, if I have to watch another two months of this nonsense I may be taking my vote elsewhere. Remember, it is the Obama administration that is running this country into the ground, and it is Obama who must emerge as the loser on Election Day.

Anything less would be - uncivilized.

Shays to Enter Connecticut GOP Senate Race; Campaign Could Be Mirror Image of National - And That's a Good Thing!

2012-01-24T16:18:00.000-05:00

If you are in the vicinity of Hartford, Connecticut around noon on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - tomorrow in layman's terms - you might want to stop by the Old State House and catch former Congressman Chris Shays as he launches his campaign for US Senate.

Shays, who spent more than two decades representing Connecticut's 4th Congressional District, will not be alone in the race which now has at least five contenders. His best known opponent is Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and the loser in her Senate match-up two years ago with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, former Connecticut Attorney General.

All five of the Senatorial candidates attended the Friday night dinner meeting of Grassroots East, a GOP support group for the sprawling 2nd Congressional District that runs from the Connecticut River to the Rhode Island border, and from Long Island Sound to Massachusetts. (Connecticut is a fairly small state, but I love to say sprawling, especially since I have friends in Texas where a modest-sized ranch could swallow up several states the size of Connecticut with room left over.)

In addition to Shays and McMahon the other Senatorial candidates are Brian K. Hill, Kie Westby and Peter Lumaj. The Grassroots East event attracted about 200 area Republicans so everyone who is running for office had a prime opportunity to meet, greet, and campaign. Peter Lumaj's supporters even left a brochure on my windshield which I discovered when I was driving on Rt. 2, but it didn't fly off so I got to read it when I got home.

I hadn't met Chris Shays prior to the Friday night event, but I was invited to attend by my friend and former 2nd District Congressman Rob Simmons and we were joined at Rob's table by Chris and his wife Betsi. They made for enjoyable, entertaining and knowledgeable dinner companions - as did Rob's wife and daughter - and it was a wonderful evening.

Shays' decision to enter the Senatorial race will make this an interesting political year for Connecticut's Republicans, much as the abundance of contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination are keeping the public eye on that race nationally.

McMahon announced she would be seeking the seat being vacated by former Democrat, now Independent and outgoing Senator Joseph Lieberman almost as soon as she lost the race to Blumenthal. There are many party insiders who believe that she deserves the nod, but there are many others who - citing her negative poll numbers - think the race should be wide open.

Linda McMahon - Washington Times Photo

I've been hearing on the national scene that some GOP power brokers aren't happy having four candidates still going strong. It is is somewhat irritating to them, if you believe the national pundits, that none seem inclined to bow out and support Mitt Romney who, like McMahon, was the candidate of choice for some party insiders.

The same probably will be said here in Connecticut about Shays and the other candidates, but I disagree, both statewide and nationally.

I couldn't be happier that we have multiple candidates in our high-profile races and I hope they all wage vigorous, issues-related campaigns so voters can get a good idea of their strengths, weaknesses and the real issues facing our state and our nation. The voters win under these circumstances which I believe is the point.

Shays spent a lot of time in the US Congress because his district, which has an abundance of Democrats in cities like Bridgeport, where he lives, nonetheless kept sending him back. His loss in 2008 is attributed to many Independents and Republicans in the 4th voting for Barack Hussein Obama, for which I imagine they are now kicking themselves.

Shays, like Simmons, knew his district and knew that to continue representing the voters there he had to walk a very fine line. On one hand he had to work for the continuing support of his party, which got easier with each election but still required adherence to conservative values.

But he also had to represent the entire district when he got elected, which meant he had to keep the moderates, independents and liberals happy or at least not too made at him.

On the national level we are bombarded with the mainstream GOP theme that to get the voters' support a GOP candidate has to be the most conservative or "the base" won't vote for him. Thus we are bored to tears with debate after debate that at some point has an exchange based on the "Qui es mas conservative?" issue.

Each candidate trots out his conservative votes and positions and the opponents jump all over him with examples of times they were not so conservative.

Truth is, as Rick Santorum has been saying, when you represent a state you have to represent the majority values of that state even if your personal beliefs are different. Connecticut is a blue state, and New England also has a blue (liberal) reputation so Republican candidates have to show that they not only are the best qualified in their party, but in the entire state.

I didn't ask Chris Shays directly how he intends to wrest the nomination away from McMahon, who was roundly criticized two years ago when she ran against Simmons and was accused of buying the state GOP convention vote. (McMahon is said to have spent upwards of $50 million on that losing effort and many Connecticut Republicans expect no less of an effort from her this time.)

Shays apparently has taken this into account and is completely prepared to take the nomination process out to the rank and file Republicans if McMahon is again succe$$ful in convincing a majority of party delegates to vote for her. A primary is a good idea in these conditions and I think it would be better for fall campaigning if the eventual winner has the support of a majority of voters.

If you sense a recurring theme here it is that I believe the voters have a very good idea of what is good for them and if given a real choice will vote for the candidate who can best deliver the conditions that will again make us strong, viable and competitive.

Our state deficit is in the billions of dollars and our national deficit is in the trillions. This is unacceptable. If it continues it will lead to the collapse of our entire system of government, and as of this November we will survive as a state and nation only if the very best people are elected to lead us out of this mess.

Chris Shays could have walked off into the sunset with his wife Betsi and said he had done his best for long enough and now it is someone else's turn. But he believes he has much left to offer and to prove his point he will be standing before a crowd of supporters at the Old State House in Hartford tomorrow at high noon.

He won't mind if you stop by to listen to his vision and say hello.

Domestic Terrorists, Piracy, Conspiracies and ME?

2012-01-19T14:12:00.004-05:00

Did you ever add one and one and one and get three, but still not like the answer?

I did, and the answer scares the hell out of me!

The first "1" was the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as House Bill 3261 which the government claims will stop people from using the Internet to steal or make money from copyrighted material.

But yesterday some major Internet sites including Google and Wikipedia along with thousands of others, shut down completely in protest of efforts to enact SOPA into law. The bill's critics say it is part of an ongoing effort to stifle free speech, clamp down on whistle blowing and knock the pins out from under the free flow of information.

The second "1" is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, which has amendments that allow for indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil, who normally are not under military control.

The third "1" is the definition of "Domestic Terrorists" as interpreted by the Obama Administration, which has a lot of people fearful that it includes Internet bloggers such as me. In theory, the detention law and domestic terrorist definitions are supposed to give law enforcement officials and the military additional tools with which to protect us from Islamo-fascists.

Since the definitions are terribly vague, however, it is more than possible that the full weight of the government could be brought to bear on ordinary, law-abiding citizens who are doing nothing more than exercising their constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and to redress their grievances with their government! (The assembly in this case would be of the 'virtual' kind since it is done on the Internet.)

According to news reports Section 1021 of the NDAA requires military detainment of people belonging to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda or the Taliban and their supporters. Actually I think that includes numerous organizations that made up the nearly defunct – as in "it hurts to camp out in the cold" – "Occupy" movement.

But when you realize that the Obama Administration's definition of a domestic terrorist includes: veterans (check); conservatives (check); supporters of the original constitution (check); supporters of the second amendment to the US Constitution (check); male (let me take a look. Yes! Check.) Christian, (check); supporters of the Fair Tax as opposed to production –income – taxes, (check); opposed to the IRS making criminals out of wage earners who want to keep what they earn (check); oh, and white (Last time I looked. Check.)

Then we have further vague definitions that surfaced in the last couple of days including people who blame the government for what is wrong with the country (most voters of virtually all parties. check); people who use the Internet to draw attention to their beliefs, and seek out like-minded individuals (check); and people who believe in conspiracies.

Let explain something here. Legally, a conspiracy exists when as few as two people plot between them to do something that is harmful or illegal. So when a couple of congressmen or senators find a place that is out of range of cameras and microphones and decide to support each others bills, such as SOPA, it is legally a conspiracy, since SOPA clearly poses potential harm to the American public.

So yes, I believe in conspiracies. (check)

Oh, and lately there have been some additions to the institutional paranoia that marks the Obama Administration in particular and our government in general. People who stock up on flashlights and batteries, and people who buy more than 7 days worth of food are now considered potential terrorism suspects. People who pay for motel rooms with cash instead of credit cards – maybe a couple involved in an illicit tryst for instance – now might be terrorists.

Must I remind you that the Northeast of the United States received two weather whacks last year, once from storm Irene and again from an October snowstorm that both times knocked out the power and left communities hard pressed to provide the basic necessities to people who had lost their food, heat and access to water for weeks on end? Such people, including yours truly, stocked up on dried goods, batteries and generators to help prepare for any future calamities.

But now, we might be domestic terrorists. (check.)

Here is an example of what I consider to be a real conspiracy. Does anyone have an accurate and up-to-date accounting of the trillions of dollars in stimulus money that the Obama administration has appropriated to itself? Last I heard, hundreds of billions of dollars have not been spent and no one knows where they went.

OK, now check this out, from July 2008 when Obama was campaigning out in Colorado.

Now that you've seen the video, consider that establishment and upkeep of a full-sized national police force such as the Gestapo, or the Russian NKVD, or the East German Stasi, would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and where would a person in charge get that kind of money without too much oversight? Well, first you use your Congress to appropriate far more than you need, then you fund a bunch of no-brainer initiatives – like Clunkers for Cash – that waste billions of taxpayer's dollars which gives you the image of a spendthrift who can't keep track of his toys, and while everyone is focused on stupid diversions, you build up your national secret police force.

Meanwhile, you pass initiatives that supposedly portray you as a tough-on-terror wartime president, when you really are stripping away the individual rights and protections of the American public that won't catch on until it is too late. Now that is a conspiracy.

I was watching the Republican debate on FOX News the other night and I couldn’t help but think of all the things that are going on behind our backs, seemingly not connected, but in reality part of an overall plan, when Ron Paul made the remarks that got him booed by South Carolina Republicans.

Paul said he believes that we should follow a Golden Rule policy of 'Do Unto Our Enemies AS We Would Have Them Do Unto Us.'

I don't agree with him on that, although I do agree that our income tax should go back to being zero percent as it was before 1913.

But when protecting our country from all enemies "foreign and domestic" I say we should follow a more realistic policy of Do Unto Our Enemies BEFORE They Do Unto Us!

That is neither terrorism nor a conspiracy theory. That is just plain common sense!

United States Marines Under Attack From ... US

2012-01-16T12:24:00.007-05:00

It certainly looks like a bad time to be a US Marine.

First we have nearly every major politician and bureaucrat on the national scene, not to mention senior military officials, going apoplectic over a video of four US Marines p---ing on the bodies of some dead terrorists in Afghanistan last summer.

Then we have the ongoing court martial of SSgt. Frank Wuterich, a Connecticut native who is the only one of the original eight Haditha Marines to still be facing trial on murder charges - nearly everyone else has had all the charges dropped, and one other Marine who went to trial was exonerated on all charges, so how Wuterich gets singled out is perplexing to say the least.

Aside from the "so-what" factor in the international p---ing contest, given that enemy combatants have long been p---ing on each other after especially bloody battles, the fact is, US troops have endured far, far worse at the hands of our enemies going all the way back to the French and Indian War. Just ask John McCain the Vietnam era POW and current Arizona senator who was one of the first people to jump up and convict the Marines even before they were positively identified or the video authenticated.

I guess he misses his old buddy, the late John Murtha D-PA, the "King of Pork" who used the media to convict the Haditha Marines, calling them cold-blooded murderers before even a shred of evidence was presented.

And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has never served in the military and whose only exposure to battle was a faked claim of coming under sniper fire in Bosnia when she was First Lady sure had plenty to say about it.

Clinton apparently is upset that the video which surfaced last week even though it is at least many months old, will mess up the ticklish appeasement talks between the US State Department and the Taliban terrorists. You know, the people who joined with Al Qaeda to attack us on 9-11-2001 and whom we vanquished in 2001-2002.

Then after we handed over conduct of Afghan operations to NATO which spent the next five or six years messing the place up royally, the terrorists (Taliban) enjoyed a Renaissance of Terror which helped them achieve an explosion in recruitment. And now, according to the administration of the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces the Taliban "is not our enemy." Really, can it get any more Alice in Wonderland-like than this?

We even have the commandant of the Marine Corps convening a massive investigatory effort headed by a hand-picked general to get to the bottom of it ... so to speak.

Does the commandant know that according to folk lore Scottish Sword Dancing originated during the Highland Clan era when the leader of whatever clan defeated whatever other clan in battle danced over crossed swords, one his and one belonging to his vanquished foe? And that some legends even say that the swords were crossed over the bloodied head of his rival?

Kind of makes taking a p--- seem pretty tame in comparison doesn't it?

UPDATE: A reader sent me the following, which certainly gives Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel a huge boost in my book. From Rep. West: I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah. All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file ... . As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.

The over-reaction to the video of the Marines relieving themselves on enemy terrorists is similar to what occurred after the media falsely reported that Marines slaughtered innocent civilians in the town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. SSgt. Wuterich is charged with 12 counts of unpremeditated murder associated with the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians following an IED attack on the 12-man squad he commanded that killed one Marine and wounded two others.

Originally a total of 8 Marines were charged with crimes following the battle but all charges against all the others have been dismissed, except for one Marine who went through a full trial and was found innocent of all charges. (One Marine turned against his comrades in exchange for charges against him being dropped. But his testimony turned out to be so full of holes that he has been doing more damage to the prosecution than to Wuterich. Oh, and he claimed to have p---ed on a dead Taliban fighter in Haditha but nothing was made of it.)

Battalion commander Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, also faced criminal charges for failing to adequately investigate the incident, which were eventually dropped, since the government investigation of his investigation showed that the Marines didn't murder anyone and that media reports that initiated the entire fiasco were fraudulent.

Since the government couldn't find anything to charge Lt. Col. Chessani's Marines with, they had to conclude that his investigation must have been thorough and appropriate because he didn't find anything amiss either. But Chessani's career ended nonetheless, and for reasons that defy common sense the government is still trying Wuterich, apparently attempting to salvage something, anything, of its pathetic missteps against our Armed Forces.

I have written in the past and will repeat it here, that one of the most hypocritical facets of the current political atmosphere within our military is the insistence that the people who are at the point of the spear, our ground combat forces, are required to adhere to Rules of Engagement that simply are impossible to apply in close-quarter combat without significantly increasing the risk of injury or death to our own forces.

If an artilleryman fires a shell on an approved mission that for unknown reasons goes awry and hits a friendly position or a civilian position, little to nothing is done to the man who actually fires the cannon. The shell could go long or short for many reasons - bad ammo packing back in the states; unexpected atmospheric conditions on a flight that can span a dozen miles and more for instance - but the man who pulls the trigger rarely is held accountable.

If a pilot in a jet bomber anywhere from ground level to 30,000 feet, drops a bomb that hits the wrong target, once again, little if anything is done to the pilot. Everyone knows that munitions fired from high altitudes at high speeds can go off target; even if there is an inquiry, it is rare to blame the pilot when so much is out of his control.

But put an infantryman in a warren of houses and twisted narrow streets with rocket and sniper fire all around, and insurgents running into and out of houses where civilians are cowering in fear and suddenly he is supposed to act like RoboCop instead of a scared kid whose heart is pounding, ears are ringing and whose mouth is as dry as cotton.

He is supposed to force open the doors of house after house where enemy troops had been firing at him only seconds earlier, clear the rooms without being shot himself, usually by throwing a grenade inside, and then enter the darkness and make split second decisions on whether anyone is inside and if so, if they are enemy or civilian. He is supposed to be able to see in the smoke and darkness and know without question that any movement is either friend or foe, all in a split second.

If he survives the battle, where the terrorists routinely enter homes in the towns they have occupied and kill the inhabitants before running out the back so they can blame the US for atrocities, the American fighters face an onslaught from a communist inspired media and chicken-s**t politicians and military "leaders" who have no qualms over convicting innocent members of the Armed Forces.

I dare Hillary Clinton or John McCain to go through a combat infantry course that includes house-to-house and street fighting and see how well they'd do - not in real combat where a mistake can cost you your life and the lives of your friends - but just in training. I bet they'd both fail miserably.

These continued attacks on our troops, stabbing them in the back here at home while they are overseas attempting to preserve our freedoms and way of life, are certain to have a long-term negative impact on our military.

Most warriors go into battle with an "I'm here to kick a$$ and chew bubble gum and I'm all out of bubble gum," attitude. But how long can we expect our warriors to maintain the warrior spirit if they are perpetually second-guessed by a bunch of desk riders and chair polishers back in Congress and the Pentagon?

Over-reactions as in the Haditha fighting and now the Afghanistan Urination Situation, could make this a very bad time to be in the service. Unfortunately, we have honorable young men and women who are trying to do something honorable for people who have no honor.

There is a better way to show support for our troops than to go off the wall in a needless investigation that results in a career ending court martial. Ask the Marines if they did it, and if they say yes, ask them why. Then write down their explanation, and put a letter of reprimand in their personnel files.

Oh, and write the letter in disappearing ink.

If the Taliban, those rascally little devils that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John McCain like so much, don't want to be shot and p---ed on I have another idea. How about they stop shooting and blowing up our guys? Then our guys will stop p---ing on them.

As for Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr Cain and the rest of the DC political and military hand-wringing, appeasing sycophants who have so much to say about our fighters, I have three words for all of you ... pi$$ off wankers!

A Vote for Huntsman is a Vote for Obama

2012-01-08T15:12:00.001-05:00

I have generally been in agreement with comments by nearly all the GOP presidential candidates that any one of them would be better than the current occupant of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama.

That is, until I watched the ABC News version of a "debate" Saturday night, which actually was an ABC News version of "gotcha," and was generally worthless except to expose Jon Huntsman as a consummate insider with an 60's era anti-military bias. (It should be noted that Huntsman's last job was Ambassador to China for none other than Barack Hussein Obama which essentially disqualified him from consideration in my mind anyway.)

Huntsman's attitude toward the military was revealed during one of the most asinine exchanges of the night - which really is saying something - over whether an American president should be a military veteran to be an effective commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The question served as a vehicle to attack Newt Gingrich, and to showcase the military service of Ron Paul and Rick Perry.

Mr. Paul was drafted soon after he received his medical degree and served as an Air Force flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965, well before the US committed major forces to Vietnam, and then did another three years in the Texas Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. OK, he did two years performing flight physicals on pilots and air crew members to clear them for flight status, not exactly hazardous duty, but still, he was in, and then he did three more years of the one weekend each month and two weeks in the summer bit.

But Paul also has called Mr. Gingrich a "chicken-hawk" because Gingrich, who grew up in an Army family, and lived his entire childhood moving from one army base to another, didn't get drafted to serve in the military during Vietnam. Now, that is a low blow to begin with, and not worthy of true debate on the issues facing America, but this is where Huntsman got into it and lost my vote forever.

Gingrich was saying something about requiring leadership in the position, not necessarily military experience and how the commander in chief has to rely on his military leaders to give him the advice he needs to make the right decisions. Gingrich has a point since I doubt a flight surgeon, even one who may be an outstanding doctor, knows very much about the order of battle.

Up jumps Huntsman with a snide comment about the advice the American military gave to the president in 1967, an obvious reference to the oft-repeated and wholly inaccurate media claims that the military didn't know the Tet Offensive which the communist's launched on Jan. 31, 1968 was coming. In fact, the South Vietnamese military was on reduced alert because they had trusted the communist leaders who offered a cease fire so both sides could observe the traditional New Year.

Obviously the communists lied, which should have surprised no one, but it didn't matter because American forces - aided by South Vietnamese who were on duty and others who made it back to their units - responded magnificently and handed the communists their worst defeat of the war to that point. The liars on the American side were politicians, like Huntsman, and the media, like the stooges at ABC "news" who moderated Saturday night's alleged "debate."

(I think the most laughable issue of the night was a question by George Stephanopoulos who is famous for revealing in the 2000 elections that he didn't know the Florida panhandle is in the Central Time Zone, about whether states should have the right to ban contraceptives. Mitt Romney handled that one very well ... No states want to so what's your point?)

We don't need to re-fight the Vietnam War here, history will be the final judge, but the American military never lost a single major engagement in that war. While we lost 58,000 troops trying to prevent world communism from taking over all of Southeast Asia, the communists lost by their own admission more than one-million troops, some sources say it was more like 1.5 million, and the Viet Cong guerrilla forces were wiped out.

Vietnam didn't fall until people that Huntsman probably thinks of as heroes forced the South Vietnamese to sign the absolutely worthless Paris Peace accords in 1973, and then the US Congress passed the Case-Church resolution which ended all aid to the south, economic, military and humanitarian. Two years later the communists invaded the south, which fell, and then went on a five-year rampage of torture, slaughter and butchery that left millions dead and millions more displaced.

That was not the fault of America's military, it was 100 percent the fault of America's interfering politicians ... guys like Huntsman, and a media that was so biased in favor of the communists there should have been treason trials. So in my opinion, you vote for a guy like Huntsman, you are voting for Obama all over again. Hopefully Huntsman will be gone soon enough.

As far as the posturing about military service I would advise Mr. Gingrich that the next time he encounters that crap he should point out that less than 10 percent of all living Americans are serving or have served in the military. But that doesn't negate the service of tens of millions of other Americans who have honorably served in other ways - and support the military in any way they can.

In fact, the original question and the responses quite frankly are an insult to those Americans. Gingrich should point that out and Mr. Paul should stop posturing as some kind of hero. The fact that he served should be enough.

Hello Santorum! McCain a Stake in Romney Campaign Heart?

2012-01-04T12:50:00.004-05:00

Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses hands down Tuesday night, even if with more than 122,000 votes cast Mitt Romney got eight (8) count 'em 8, more than Santorum.

Santorum was considered out of the race altogether just two weeks ago, and was dismissed so badly by the media that when he debated his fellow Republicans he was often left out of the widescreen shots of the debate stage. No kidding, my wife and I watched a debate after Santorum had complained about minimal questions sent his way and a dearth of face time, and I swear the network went out of its way to show even less of him.

But Santorum did a strange thing in this day of easily manipulated political candidates ... he listened to his own counsel, ran his own campaign and got out among the real people to meet them and talk about what he can do for our country. I just saw a spot on FOX News that said Santorum, who got 30,007 votes to Romney's 30,015 spent just $21,000 in Iowa, roughly 73 cents per vote!

The media, which obviously got next to nothing in ad buys from the Santorum campaign must be having a stroke. But then, Santorum didn't need to buy newspaper ads or slick television spots because he was there in person.

Santorum reportedly made 300 visits to communities in Iowa, at one point giving his speech to one person, the only one who showed up. But he kept going - talking and meeting and along the way people must have liked what they heard because they turned out in droves to vote for him.

There was such a wide range of personalities and so much vitriol in this campaign that when Newt Gingrich addressed his supporters after solidifying his fourth place finish, he complimented Santorum, but referred to Romney only in the context of 'some candidates running negative campaigns!' It seemed that everyone except Romney had a temporary run at the top spot, peaked briefly and then crashed. Everyone except Santorum.

Whether by design or sheer good luck, Santorum was ignored by his opponents and the media alike and when he started his sprint for the finish line everyone was looking the other way. Eight votes behind a guy who has been campaigning in Iowa for five years. $21,000 spent to come within 8 votes of a guy who spent ... how many millions? Does anyone know?

I even heard a FOX News commentator saying today that maybe Romney should have spent more time in Iowa! He had five years to get his point across and pulled out only 8 more votes than the number two spot!

Know how many delegates Romney got from Iowa? Six. Know how many delegates Santorum got from Iowa? Six. Know how many delegates third-place finisher Ron Paul got from Iowa? Six. Looks like three guys split the winners circle to me, because after all, this race isn't about what the media thinks, it's about how many delegates are committed to you in the GOP convention, and so far, three guys have six apiece. (A reader has pointed out that Romney will also get four super delegates as a result of his Iowa win. Valid point but I don't think it changes the basic premise. It just doesn't add up to that many delegates in the overall picture, and super delegates are added to the totals in other states too. Romney may end up getting the GOP nod and if he does I will gladly vote for him over Obama, but I want all the candidates still in the race to work for my vote, not take it for granted.)

Know how many are up for grabs - total - in New Hampshire? Twelve. And they get split proportionately. Know how many people are on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary? 30, including Herman Cain, who is no longer in the race, and Rickey "Average Joe" Storey who is sure to get some support just on creativity.

There won't be a real indication of who is really picking up the delegates until after South Carolina and Florida vote. So, last night in Iowa cost us one candidate - Michelle Bachmann has dropped out - and put a couple of others on notice.

But we won't know who really has the momentum in gaining the support of the bulk of the nation's Republicans for a month at least and possibly longer. There really is a long way to go in this.

The media outlets that support Romney, meaning most of them, also were waiting breathlessly Wednesday for the formal announcement from the Romney campaign that he was getting John McCain's endorsement! Seriously, remember McCain?

He ran against Obama four years ago and if it wasn't for the one smart thing he did - selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate - he would have lost by an even larger margin. McCain lost because he didn't and doesn't have the support of his own base, including the military and the veterans - of whom there are about 25 million, with a strong record of voting. In fact, if you could get the veterans on the same page and add a spouse, significant other or influenced person to the mix, you could just about decide the presidency!

But they didn't vote for McCain in anywhere near the numbers they could have, for myriad and often very good reasons, and he lost. So if I were Mitt Romney and I say this in all honesty, as a veteran, as a Republican who voted for Romney in the Connecticut primary four years ago, I would be very, very cautious about this endorsement.

It may have a very real negative impact. Going onward in this primary season I think Romney will have a good week or two pushing his Iowa and possibly New Hampshire "momentum," but after that, he is going to be in a real scrap and he has no guarantees of winning. Endorsements should garner him votes, not the enmity of people who have issues with the person doing the endorsing.

Ron Paul Soars; Santorum Up, Gingrich Down? General Dissatisfaction with GOP Field!

2011-12-31T13:39:00.000-05:00

First and foremost, Happy New Year, especially if you work off the calendar that says today is the last day of 2011 and tomorrow thus is the first day of 2012. I wish peace, happiness, good health and prosperity for you and yours. Now, let's get down to issues.

A few weeks back I wrote an article on the race for the GOP presidential nomination in which I expressed my belief that Texas Congressman Ron Paul's foreign relations viewpoints are dangerous to our country.

A veteran friend immediately threw the "B.S." flag. Except, like the little kid in the Christmas Story who says "Oh F-U-D-G-E" but he didn't say Fudge, he said the Queen Mother of all swear words, my friend didn't say "B.S." He spelled it out with no mistaking his meaning.

My friend is an avid Ron Paul supporter, and let's be frank here, everyone who supports Ron Paul is an "avid" supporter. But my friend obviously had a good view of where things were going for the GOP.

We talked about Paul's positions back on Veterans Day and my friend said he didn't think the foreign relations issues matter all that much because Ron Paul as president couldn't unilaterally dictate American foreign policy without Congressional approval. He also said Herman Cain wouldn't survive the media onslaught against him at that time, which proved to be right on the money.

Regarding the president dictating foreign policy, I admit he has a point, but we currently have a president who is unilaterally setting American foreign policy and Congress isn't saying a peep, so I'm not sure what would change under a Ron Paul presidency.

Nonetheless, Paul is streaking toward the top spot in the polls preceding the Iowa GOP caucuses which take place Tuesday, if you believe the polls. Up there where the air is rare he has joined perennial almost-favorite Mitt Romney, who also has shared top billing with the likes of Michelle Bachmann, now dead last in the polls, Herman Cain, now out of the running, Rick Perry, way, way back in the pack, and Newt Gingrich, dropping like a rock.

The only other person who currently is moving upward at a significant pace is former US Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. To which I say, Good for Him, he wanted it, now he has it. That is, if you believe the polls.

Personally I think this just reflects the American voters' dissatisfaction with the status quo and regardless of how many candidates the media knocks off, the majority just won't jump on the Mitt Romney bandwagon as long as there is someone else in the running.

The media is downplaying Paul's increasing popularity, primarily because the media and the rest of the GOP elitists don't like him … he makes too much sense and he wouldn't be much fun at a Washington D.C. cocktail party. So, the media is dredging up some two-decades-old newsletters that Paul produced that hint darkly at racist tendencies.

The existence of these letters has been reported in the media since the mid-1990s when Paul was running for Congress, and they surfaced again about four years ago on the national scene, but without much widespread impact.

Why the media didn't jump all over this months or even years ago is anybody's guess … well, no it isn't. The media knew about this all along but timing is everything and you can bet that every person in the GOP race who is NOT Mitt Romney has some skeleton hiding in the closet that will emerge at exactly the instant they get too close to taking the first-place spot.

Ask Herman Cain or New Gingrich. They'll tell you. If you think for even a second that the media isn't controlling the outcome of the GOP race, through its "coverage" of these skeletons at precisely the right moments, or the use of these interminable "polls" some of which are laughably transparent, then you aren't paying attention.

The media, and in my case that essentially means FOX News - because I gave up on the networks years ago, never trusted CNN and don't watch MSNBC even though it has some beautiful women in the broadcast booth, but virtually no news credibility - is running this show and decided long ago that this is to be a Barack Obama-Mitt Romney race. Period.

Fortunately the voters are giving the media fits and won't just move en masse to the Romney camp. There is a general dissatisfaction with anyone viewed as part of the Congressional and White House establishment, meaning Romney, and I believe the voting public is far more aware of the media manipulation than the media wants to admit and is reacting accordingly.

Trying to control this race at this point has to be very similar to herding cats.

At the moment voter dissatisfaction is being displayed by continuing shifts to whatever GOP candidate is still standing and I believe this will continue after the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary even though some candidates already are being pressured to withdraw – without a single vote being cast! As I noted a couple of months ago, in remarking on Herman Cain's campaign strategy, the Iowa and New Hampshire votes don't really have much impact on the numbers of delegates available – Tennessee has as many as both combined.

What we really get in Iowa and then New Hampshire is the appearance of voter momentum, and presumably higher donations to the top tier candidates. That in turn can be used to buy ad space in larger states and to make huge media buys on Super Tuesday when dozens of states, representing a huge chunk of delegates hold simultaneous votes.

This is really driving this race for the future of America – competition for ad dollars for the large newspapers, as well as network and cable news outlets and radio spots. Imagine that my fellow voters – we are being offered a relatively small number of choices based entirely on how much money the media believes the various candidates will have available to buy ads, and thus pay the pundits' salaries.

God Bless America. Go Ron Paul; and Rick Santorum!

I Want Whoopi Goldberg's Money – Now!

2011-12-29T16:07:00.000-05:00

Whoopi Goldberg made a comment the other day on a television show where she is a regular commenter that "on paper" communism is a "great concept" that "makes perfect sense."

From a political standpoint it is obvious that the Obama Administration, which Ms. Goldberg supports and fund-raises for, is drawing away the curtain of semi-obscurity and openly admitting that communism is its driving philosophy.

Obviously Ms. Goldberg's comments were a trial balloon for the administration, designed to elicit a response that will show Obama just how much the American public cares about, or more important, knows about communism and his efforts to move our country to a communist form of government.

Now, to be fair to Ms. Goldberg, she added that once human beings become involved in the process communism doesn't work. Nonetheless, she thinks it is a great concept. I respectfully disagree with every fiber in my body.

I have seen communism up close and personal and it is a horrible idea that panders to the basest of human emotions – jealousy and envy to name two – while destroying human initiative, creativity and ultimately the human spirit. Its core premise - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need – comes down to the most productive people in society being forced to give up most of what they earn to support the least productive.

This in turn kills even the most miniscule germs of initiative because no matter how hard the smartest, quickest and most creative work, they never reap the true rewards of their efforts. Meanwhile, those who produce little to nothing and have little to no initiative or creative energy, have their needs provided for thanks to the efforts of the productive members of society.

Recently there was an example going around the Internet that I passed on to the college students I taught which applies here; if you think communism is so great, we'll just take all the As and all the Bs that have been earned by the hardest working students and give them to the students with Cs and Ds who spend their evenings drinking, taking drugs and playing Beer Pong.

Then everyone will have the same grades at graduation. Is that OK with you?

I'll tell you right now, even the D students knew damn well that it wasn't a good idea and that if it was enacted a college education would mean nothing. Oddly enough, there always were a few students in each class who gladly would have leeched off the efforts of their hard working classmates.

I like Whoopi Goldberg as an actress – I think she did a great job in the Burglar, Jumpin' Jack Flash and the Sister Act movies among others. But I never thought much of her standup routine because I found it to be needlessly crude and not funny, and I basically disagree with her political views.

But if she really thinks that communism is such a great concept "on paper" then let's apply it to her and others like her. I presume that Ms. Goldberg is a millionaire, probably a multi-, multi-millionaire, and we all know that she doesn't need that much to survive in America.

So how about if she gives us a comprehensive review of her income and expenditures for the last five years, and in a true communist society she would do it without hesitation or risk forced labor or death, and we'll come up with a realistic number for what she really needs.

We can then divvy up her accumulated wealth – starting with me so I can pay off my Christmas bills without needless worry – and then take a percentage of her future earnings, say 90 percent just for argument's sake, and distribute that to others who need it; for instance the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

It's unfortunate that education in America has declined to such a degree that a person like Ms. Goldberg can make such an uninformed statement and by extension influence the thinking of millions of lemmings who don't know better. Goldberg, who essentially is an entertainer, a job that by its very definition is not meant to produce, but rather take some of the drudgery out of life for the rest of us who work for a living, may be smart, but she also is being used – useful idiots is the phrase communist leaders have used to describe their sycophants.

Think for just a minute what human life would be like if communism was imposed on our species a hundred thousand years ago. We probably wouldn't be here.

Neanderthals died out because Neanderthals did things the same way every time because they had always done things that way. Cro Magnons survived because that species produced at least one being who was allowed to think independently, outside the box. Thus the species advanced.

Early man survived the last major Ice Age because he learned how to kill other mammals for food and use their skins for clothing. Somewhere, someone had the time and opportunity to think about the conditions that existed then – the founder I'd say of the discipline of philosophy – and decided after seeing an out of control forest fire that it might be nice to get a small slice of that heat and control it.

Later, while everyone else in the tribe was huddled around a campfire quivering in fear of the next attack by a saber-toothed tiger, one guy figured that if he could put a pointed end on a long stick he could inflict damage without getting hurt himself. Maybe the same guy or someone who was inspired by him figured out the sling, and then the bow and arrow.

Now tell me this; how many of our species would have survived if everything new had to be reviewed by a committee and approved of by a bureaucrat first? How many of us would be here if the tribe's apparatchik had to determine its viability every time a forward thinker had a new idea? Answer, none. Not one. No One. Nobody!

What Ms. Goldberg and her ilk tend to overlook, or dismiss, or deny, or simply don't know about is that in applying the basic concept of communism to society, people generally react negatively, just about as quickly as they discover that they have to give up stuff too. Do you live in a 1200-square-foot 1960s era single story ranch with a one-car garage?

Do you think that if communism prevails you'll get a 4,000 square foot McMansion on five acres? Think again. If you're lucky you'll stay right where you are; but you'll get a couple dozen homeless people moving in with you; from each according to your ability right?

Compared to a homeless person, anyone who has a house is a millionaire. Then again, I bet Whoopi – who reportedly has extensive real estate holdings – has a mansion or a "farm" somewhere that would hold hundreds and hundreds of homeless or jobless or just plain old folks who live in 50-year-old ranch-style dwellings.

Honest historians agree that the history of communism includes the slaughter of more than 100,000,000 people who disagreed with their masters. In fact, communism, which originally was touted as the perfect antidote for the European aristocracies that existed in the mid-1800s, turned out to be nothing more than a new form of totalitarianism that proved to be even more controlling and more brutal than the system it replaced.

In Southeast Asia, two years after the US Congress voted to abandon its ally, South Vietnam, a budding democracy, the North Vietnamese communists invaded and initiated a decade of butchery. Neighboring Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge who went on a rampage of slaughter as did the Laotian Pathet Lao, all in the name of communism.

An estimated 3 million people, roughly the population of the state of Connecticut were slaughtered in the mayhem. Slaughtered. Butchered. Tortured. Murdered. Which word do you prefer Ms. Goldberg?

Did you notice that Whoopi wears glasses? In 1976 Cambodia that would get her killed. She works in a city – ditto. She wears western clothes, same outcome.

Worldwide, proponents of communism have shown themselves to be unrepentant butchers who share a legacy of failed economic systems, and wholesale slaughter of anyone who thinks independently. And this Ms. Goldberg thinks is a "great concept."

Do you think Barbara Walters shares her point of view? I bet she's rich too. Or better yet, how about Oprah?

An Unabashed "Welcome Home for Christmas!" Yes, I Said Christmas

2011-12-25T14:30:00.000-05:00

This says it all, far better than I can. Enjoy. And Merry Christmas from the Winter family, including Max and Sam!

A "Russian Billionaire" Owns the Nets? Challenges Putin?

2011-12-19T13:04:00.000-05:00

Until recently I thought the words 'Russian' and 'Billionaire' taken together were a contradiction in terms.

And if someone had said this Russian Billionaire, myth-like in concept akin to the Yeti, would own the New Jersey er, excuse me, New York, er excuse me, Brooklyn Nets professional basketball team I would have choked on my GlenMorangie.

Now I find there really is a Russian billionaire, several in fact, but this one's name is Mikhail Prokhorov. Last year the National Basketball Association approved his purchase of 80 percent of the woebegone Nets and 45 percent of the facility they are scheduled to move into next year, the Barclays Center, a $4.5 billion sports, commercial and residential center in Brooklyn. (How do you L.A. Dodgers like them apples?)

Forbes says he is the third richest man in Russia and the 32nd richest man in the world worth about $18 billion, which isn't bad considering it's only been two decades since the Soviet Union and its accompanying communist government and economic system collapsed. Prokhorov was born in 1965 and he spent his youth living under communism which apparently gave him the opportunity to appreciate the benefits of capitalism.

After graduating from the Moscow Finance Institute Prokhorov made his name in the financial sector and went on to become one of Russia's leading industrialists in the precious metals sector. While that information is interesting, I am far more interested in the fact that he wants to take on Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in the presidential elections next year.

Earlier this month Prokhorov announced his intention to run as an independent in the 2012 presidential elections. As Russia's prime minister and former president Putin is the favorite.

Frankly, at first blush, anyone taking on Putin would appear to be a suicide waiting to happen - and there are those who say Putin would be only too willing to help a challenger who developed cold feet. But Prokhorov is obviously nobody's fool and should be well aware of Putin's reputation as a hard-case nationalist who may have been slipping in the polls of late but still has the backing of a majority of Russians who support what he represents.

Putin's party recently took a pretty big hit in the parliamentary elections that opponents say were rigged even with the diminished returns for Putin, but that hasn't altered his status as the favorite candidate ... yet. Putin served two terms as president previously, but Russia operates under a form of term limits that forced him to step aside, and also allows him to run again.

So up steps Mr. Prokhorov to throw a monkey wrench into the works - or appear to give Putin's third term some credibility according to some who keep a close eye on the Russian political scene and don't think Prokhorov is a serious candidate. Nonetheless, Prokhorov actually has many things in common with Putin.

They both are avid sports enthusiasts, including the martial arts. Prokhorov, at 6 feet 8 inches, probably could have played on his own Nets team, which last year narrowly averted the record for the worst losing season in the history of American basketball.

He also likes to jet ski and do acrobatics including back flips which is not exactly an easy maneuver. Prokhorov doesn't make as big a deal of his martial arts training as Putin does his, but he at least is familiar with the concepts.

Prokhorov is considered a major money maker and world traveler, and has his enemies too. At a Christmas party at the French Alpine resort of Courcheval in January 2007, he was arrested for allegedly arranging prostitutes for his guests, which cracked me up when I read about it because I thought prostitution was a national past time in France ... or at least an honored profession.

After four days he was released with no charges being filed and his case was dismissed, with apologies from the French so he says. I wonder how much that cost him?

There are two great things about Prokhorov's candidacy and his ownership of the Nets. He will give us plenty of diversions both at home and abroad in the coming year and we can keep close tabs on the Nets to see if they can possibly drag themselves up from the NBA cellar.

Who knows, maybe the Nets will flourish under his ownership and have a great season. If so, while he is running around Russia doing candidate commercials and shaking voters' hands maybe us football fans can persuade him to approach the NFL about purchasing another embarrassing sports franchise ... the Giants!

Goodnight Baghdad; Ron Paul is a Dangerous Man!

2011-12-16T13:15:00.004-05:00

Nearly a decade ago, on October 10, 2002, a number of prominent Democrats including West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller and then US Senator from New York Hillary Clinton, delivered speeches asserting that the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, had used them in the past, likely would again, and should be deposed.

Other Democrats, politicians and bureaucrats alike, made similar statements in the months and years before - going back deep into the Clinton Administration - and after that date. Their comments were used to bolster then President George Bush's argument that having routed Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, we should turn our attention to Iraq where terrorists were regrouping.

You can see some of the comments in the video below and then I'll tell you why they didn't matter to me then and don't matter to me now.

I never cared about the weapons Saddam Hussein had in his arsenal because the weapons possessed by a potential enemy should not be the reasons used in deciding whether to fight; they may be a major factor in deciding how to fight, but not whether.

I supported Bush's position on Iraq because members of Al Qaeda, fresh from their defeats on Afghanistan's battlefields, including Abu Al-Zarqawi, one of Osama bin Laden's top inner circle strategists, were moving into Iraq to reestablish terrorist training camps from which to launch further attacks against our country. This was done with the full knowledge and approval of Saddam Hussein.

Bush had promised to hunt down and "smoke out" any terrorists who harbored ill will against our country after the attacks of September 11, 2001 and made it clear that any country aiding or sheltering them was our enemy. Regardless of the previous history between Saddam and the US it was abundantly clear that he was now our enemy, was harboring terrorists, and aiding them in their efforts to reestablish their bases and infrastructure.

The rest is history. Congress gave Bush overwhelming, bi-partisan approval to invade Iraq, we did, Saddam's army was destroyed in weeks, and the instant that it was reported - somewhat inaccurately it turned out - that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction couldn't be located, and thus supposedly never existed, the previous purrs of approval turned into brays of betrayal.

You can see more of Hillary Clinton's comments supporting a Congressional resolution on Iraq here.

She obviously waffled all over the place, but in the end she supported Bush.

Fast forward to yesterday, when after more than 8 years of war, the Obama Administration declared that our military presence in Iraq is officially over. A ceremony was held, representatives of the Iraqi government refused to attend, and the battle flags were furled. Yet, we still have troops in Iraq, and may send more back.

The New York Times reported that: Although Thursday’s ceremony represented the official end of the war, the military still has two bases in Iraq and roughly 4,000 troops, including several hundred who attended the ceremony. At the height of the war in 2007, there were 505 bases and more than 170,000 troops.

Those troops that remain are still being attacked daily, mainly by artillery or mortar fire on the bases, and roadside bombs aimed at convoys heading south toward Kuwait.

Even after the last two bases are closed and the final American combat troops withdraw from Iraq by Dec. 31, a few hundred military personnel and Pentagon civilians will remain, working within the American Embassy as part of an Office of Security Cooperation to assist in arms sales and training to the Iraqis.

But negotiations could resume next year on whether additional American military personnel can return to assist their Iraqi counterparts further.

So are we out of Iraq or not? Has our mission been accomplished or not? I guess it depends on who you ask and how the word "mission" is defined.

That is the irony of what obviously was a political decision made in the White House with little to no support from the military commanders. The decision to leave, especially the way it was done, accomplished little except to give President Barack Hussein Obama a semblance of plausibility when he tries to convince one-time supporters in coming months that he really kept his campaign promises of four years ago.

FOX News Pentagon reporter Jennifer Griffin covered the ceremony on scene with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and when the ceremony was over asked him a question that had to be asked, but which he struggled to answer. "Was it worth it?" she asked.

It was noted during this segment that America lost nearly 4,500 troops killed and more than 30,000 wounded, in addition to more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths. What was not spelled out was whether those Iraqi deaths were civilians, terrorists or a combination.

Panetta gave Griffin a "bub-buh-bub-buh" response and I stopped listening to him.

I think the answer to her question is simple: "It was necessary."

Let there be no doubt that our military once again performed magnificently, and accomplished the mission they were given in 2003, which was to overthrow Hussein and eliminate the terrorist threat from Iraq.

It seemed for a time that every Muslim jihadist in the world who could scape together the travel fare made his way to Iraq to die in battle and take his place in the Muslim version of paradise. Waiting in Iraq were America's armed forces, who obliged each and every jihadist and gladly helped them meet their maker.

A few years ago I received some information indicating that prior to "The Surge" in which our troop strength was greatly increased and our battlefield presence proved to be overwhelming, our troops had sent more than 50,000 terrorists on the path to paradise. Presumably, with the intense fighting during the Surge and the continuing mop-up operations since, that number went considerably higher.

When all was said and done the terrorists were crushed, Iraqi citizens began forming their own government, held their own elections, and are in the process of continuing on as an independent Democratic country. Challenges abound of course, including interference from Iran, but Al Qaeda in Iraq was crushed and never did launch another major attack against the US.

But the little of Panetta's speech that I caught did not sound like a victory speech, and in fact when Camp Victory was handed over to the Iraqi government on Dec. 2, Vice President Joe Biden refused to use the word "victory" in his remarks there. I heard stupid comments along the lines of "our military can leave with their chins up," or in a similar vein "we can march out with our heads held high."

Why isn't Hillary Clinton standing on the border with Kuwait, tousling our little soldiers' hair and handing out lollipops as they go by? That is the image the Obama Administration is trying to portray, isn't it?

I am getting a very bad feeling of deja vous, akin to the situation in Vietnam in 1973 when the US and its allies had decisively defeated the communist army of North Vietnam and had annihilated its Viet Cong guerrilla puppets in the south.

Even though they had been handed the conditions to declare a full victory and insist on a total surrender, at the cost of 58,000 Americans killed and more than 100,000 wounded, America's politicians and bureaucrats, some of whom it was later revealed were little more than traitors and communist plants, instead crafted a wholly insufficient cease fire and peace accord. The Paris Peace Accord was remarkable only in that it allowed the US Congress to abandon an ally who was totally dependant on our support.

Two years later, alone and defenseless, the south fell to the resurgent communists who erupted in an orgy of butchery and slaughter, ultimately murdering nearly 3 million people, imprisoning hundreds of thousands in concentration camps, and sending more than a million fleeing on the South China Sea where some 300,000 disappeared.

The ruthlessness of the communist atrocities in Southeast Asia in the mid-1970s was on a par with that of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung. But the US stood by while it happened, lifting not one finger to help our fallen allies, and sucking up to China in the meantime.

The likelihood of a similar outcome for Iraq is unfortunately, all too real. Iran is licking its chops over the opportunity to renew its war with its western neighbor, and has been sending operatives into Iraq for years to recruit new jihadists and spread terrorism.

The decision to simply leave and let the chips fall where they may is as cowardly an act by the Obama administration as was his response to Iran capturing one of our unmanned spy drones. "Can we please have it back? Pretty please? With sugar on top?"

That was pathetic, as was duly noted by every single Republican candidate for president in the FOX News debate last night. Oh, except for Ron Paul who thinks Iran is just a misunderstood kid who needs some positive reinforcement and time to contemplate its future.

Paul was ranting at one point in the debate and I'm pretty sure I heard him say that every war the US has fought since WWII has been unnecessary! Ron Paul may have some popular positions on domestic and constitutional issues but he is clueless, a babe in the woods, on international matters and he is dangerous to the future of America. There isn't room here to go into the reasons so I'll save it for another column.

But I will say this. I have friends and family members who fought in Iraq, and I consider them heroes of the highest order, who did their duty, helped the citizens of Iraq rise above both the terrorists and the terrors of living under a cruel dictatorship. They went to Iraq on more than one occasion, took on the jihadists face to face, defeated them convincingly and kept our country free from attack.

For that every American can be, and should be grateful!

I will not tolerate any effort by any bureaucrats or politicians or their stooges to denigrate or undermine the efforts, performance and accomplishments of the military in Iraq. They went, they won, and they came home in victory, period.

There was no Internet in 1975 - except in Al Gore's mind - and there were few people who had sufficient facts about Vietnam to counter the media version of events. That is no longer the case. And this time, attempts to do to today's veterans what was done to Vietnam veterans will be met with robust opposition to put it mildly.

What was it the actor Tom Berenger said in the movie Platoon? "I'll take a personal interest in seeing him suffer." Worth considering.

Fox In, Trump Out; Tax Reform Dies with Cain Candidacy

2011-12-15T11:47:00.004-05:00

The number one story on FOX News for the past two days has consisted of hype for its GOP presidential candidates debate scheduled for tonight, and right behind that is the gloating over the cancellation of Donald Trump's debate that was scheduled for Dec. 27 on the ION cable network.

The number one story on FOX News should be this article http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk/ but why let the erosion of our constitutional rights in the name of national security get in the way of a real story?

Perhaps I shouldn't be so critical, but I have difficulty expunging the memories of two decades working as a journalist from my professional psyche, and I keep having these flashbacks of sending reporters' copy back to them with huge question marks all over the place. ( I have worse memories of being the reporter whose copy was trashed by his editors, but we're NOT going there today.)

In the world of television news the Fox debate is a "real" debate and thus "news" while Trump's debate was denounced by media and political elitists alike as an "unreal" debate that is noteworthy only due to its demise.

Talking airheads all over the political universe were tut-tutting Trump's decision to host a debate, since he is after all a celebrity who was in the race himself for a while. He cancelled it, so he says, not because of the cowardice of the bulk of the GOP candidates who were too chicken to appear, but because he still may run as an independent if he doesn't like the final GOP choice. Right.

Only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum ultimately agreed to appear on the Trump debate, but I'll tell you something, I would have watched anyway! Santorum constantly complains that he doesn't get enough face time, so this would have been a bonanza for him, and I could listen to Gingrich all night, especially when he isn't working against the negativism of Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Ron Paul.

I didn't hear anyone complaining when Fox personality Frank Luntz did an Internet "forum" a while back, that focused on the candidates' faith - except for Romney and another guy who are Mormons and apparently didn't feel comfortable sitting at the front of a room full of conservative Christians many of whom presumably were of the Evangelical persuasion. Luntz actually did a good job of hosting the forum for the rest of the top candidates, which included questions from the audience as well as the moderators, in a laid back, informative style that was long on information and short on made-for-TV pseudo drama.

If the FOX debate tonight is to give us any real insights into the candidates' plans for a post-Obama White House, someone should ask for some real details on where they are going with their so-called "Tax Reform" plans now that Herman Cain has been banished to the back of the bus along with his 9-9-9 plan. (I said that on purpose.)

Cain had the only plan that promised real reform because his plan was the only one that required a complete shift away from taxing the nation's best producers at increasingly higher levels, and instead taxing consumption - which would have spread the burden over everyone in this country not just the wage earners. I have been hearing for some time now that of the 140 million workers in the US, only about half actually pay income taxes.

If you go the the US Debt Clock website http://www.usdebtclock.org/ you'll see that the three components of income based taxation are Income taxes, Payroll taxes, and Corporate taxes all of which take money out of workers' pockets before they ever see it. The media regularly reports that about half of American workers get more back in tax refunds than is taken from their paychecks, but I have pointed out previously that even so, the government deducts taxes from those workers' pay all year long too, in effect giving the government an interest free loan before they get a refund the next year.

But that system also requires that the government tax people in higher income brackets at ever higher rates, meaning the harder your work, the better your education, the more you earn, the more you pay. What kind of screwed up system is that? Especially when the media constantly regurgitates the claims that "the rich" are getting away with murder while "the poor" are carrying the burden. Reality is like a cold shower in January isn't it?

Cain would have taken the load off the backs of the roughly 70 million wage earners who pay more in taxes than they get back in April, and instead would have put a lesser burden spread out over the 320,000,000 Americans and associates who got to the store every so often to buy things.

Cain's 9-9-9 plan was just the first step in eliminating the bulk of federal taxes - personal income taxes, payroll taxes, and corporate taxes, and replacing them with what is called the Fair Tax, a national sales tax which derives its name from the fact that everyone would contribute, not just those who work the hardest.

As it stands now, America's tax system penalizes the best and brightest so the worst and dumbest can sit on their asses doing nothing, collecting income they didn't earn, which comes from the taxes levied on those who get up every day and go to their jobs. This includes millions of Americans who create their own jobs instead of whining that "the government" isn't doing enough to keep them employed shuffling papers and making up things to do.

When most Americans join the labor force it is safe to presume that an overall goal is to work their way up the ladder of knowledge and responsibility with the promise of greater rewards coming on the heels of greater effort.

But we now seem to be in sort of a Reverse Aristocracy, where instead of kings and nobles taxing the middle class, we have the lumps and humps sitting around whining that someone who has actually spent their life PRODUCING thinks they have the right to keep what they earn.

Should any of the GOP candidates take up where Cain left off and seriously explore moving our tax system to a consumption base rather than a production base, they certainly will get my support. But it seems that one thing the media and political elitists fear the most with a true revision of the tax system is that the general public will no longer be subjected to the iron fist of the Internal Revenue Service and its tens of thousands of pages of tax codes, but instead will have a significant measure of CONTROL over how much they spend and thus how much they are taxed.

If a person who is well off wants to buy a $100,000 car and spend $20,000 on taxes, that is their business. If a person who doesn't have that much money wants to buy a $10,000 car and spend $2,000 on taxes, that also is their choice. The great thing about the Fair Tax is that the purchase of a new automobile will be taxed once and that is that.

Later on, if those cars are sold as used vehicles there will be no tax. I like that a lot. I also like the fact that every illegal alien in this country and every tourist who graces our shores would contribute to our tax base!

I like the fact that I could cut some trees on my property and burn wood at no tax expense to myself, except for chainsaw gas and oil, instead of buying fuel. Or I could grow a big garden and save on buying produce at the grocery store. Control ladies and gentlemen, control. That is what this is all about and I believe it is way past time for control to return to the people where it belongs.

In its pure form the Fair Tax also addresses the concept that it would hurt the poor more than the rich, a concept with which I strongly disagree by the way, by providing a monthly "prebate" which would provide families below certain income limits with the equivalent of what they would pay in taxes that month. So much for whining that "the rich" are taking advantage of the poor. What a car load of communist crap.

The true aristocracies that Communism was originally intended to oppose have been long gone from Europe and never had a place in American society. Thus, structuring this argument in rhetoric from the 1800s is pure nonsense - and won't lead to real solutions. Yes, I know full well that there are people who think they are aristocratic but usually they are full of hot air and exist on a cushion of false premises.

The great thing about America is that anyone with brains and initiative can overcome economic drawbacks and succeed to levels that are unthinkable in other societies. Why else do we have so many people trying to get in and so few clamoring to get out?

How many recent immigrants do you think participate in this "occupy" nonsense? How smart is it to keep labor union members off their jobs in American ports in an effort to destroy the very structure that provided those jobs in the first place? Not smart at all in my estimation, especially just before Christmas, which is celebrated in some form or another by more than 80 percent of Americans.

Keep people from working only weeks before Christmas morning when everyone who believes likes to see a little something under the tree? Wow, what a great strategist thought that one up.

Look, I understand that a transition to the Fair Tax would take real work and a lot of cooperation, and in some cases would involve neutralizing the people who believe in the status quo because they are lined up at the feeding trough provided by the American taxpayers too. We would have to work to make sure that today's unsustainable and unconscionable government spending sprees are returned to common sense levels and we will never escape the requirement that we keep an eye on our elected representatives and self-anointed bureaucrats alike.

But like abolitionist Wendell Phillips once stated, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." (No it wasn't Thomas Jefferson.) No one ever said that once a government is formed, those who formed it or live in its shadow can just relax and go about their business.

There is a constant ebb and flow to the human condition, and so far, fortunately, we have risen above the ebb every time to ever greater heights. But that takes work, not indolence. I hope someone brings that up at tonight's FOX News debate. I'll be watching just to find out.

China Controls Rare Earth Elements; and Thus Christmas!

2011-12-13T11:52:00.003-05:00

Were you hoping to get a new flat screen TV for Christmas? You know, one of those huge models that you mount on an entire wall of your "media room" or "man cave" that literally brings the National Football League playoffs to life?

How about a new cell phone, or better yet, one of those all-in-one smart phones that only handle phone calls as an afterthought?

If these, or other electronic devices are indeed on your Christmas list, you may want to move on those purchases while you can, because they all contain materials that collectively are termed Rare Earth Elements, without which our modern world of communication would not exist. Yet they could be in short supply sooner rather than later.

According to Wikipedia: Rare earth elements or rare earth metals are a set of seventeen chemical elements in the periodic table, specifically the fifteen lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium.

Scandium and yttrium are considered rare earth elements since they tend to occur in the same ore deposits as the lanthanides and exhibit similar chemical properties.

Despite their name, rare earth elements (with the exception of the radioactive promethium) are relatively plentiful in the Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million (similar to copper). However, because of their geochemical properties, rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms.

Unfortunately, while the electronic news media that also relies heavily on these elements is clogged with the latest celebrity and political gossip, and very rarely what in the old days would have been called news, Communist China has been amassing nearly all of the production capabilities for REEs as they are called.

Further, if the Chinese leadership gets really ticked off at us, or just decides to teach Donald Trump a lesson, they can shut the door on all our games, toys, communications devices, advanced aerospace and military equipment, medical devices, and related materials in a heartbeat. Think not? Ask Japan.

According to a recent article in the American Legion magazine, China and Japan had a bit of a tiff toward the end of last year and the next thing you know, the supply of processed Rare Earth Elements suddenly went dry for the island nation that has a long and not very nice history with the Chinese. The supply was turned on again in June, but you can bet the proud Japanese had to do a bit of kowtowing first.

Apparently Hu Jintao, the Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China, was playing his version of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and wanted everyone to see it.

Remember the exchange in Mad Max between Tina Turner as Aunty Entity who appears to run Bartertown and her arch enemy, the late Angelo Rossitto as Blaster who controlled the power supply from underground, and thus really ran Bartertown?

Blaster, in a fit of pique shuts down the power and then demands to know on a loudspeaker that is broadcast throughout the community, "Who runs Bartertown?"

"Master Blaster," is the obedient reply from Aunty.

"Louder!"

"Master Blaster runs Bartertown."

"Power on."

Japan learned its lessons just as Aunty Entity did, but in an effort to artificially inflate world prices, China's biggest producer cut shipments to Europe and the US in October.

One of many infuriating facets of this situation is that while China is reported to have more than 90 percent of the world's production of REEs, it only has between 30 and 40 percent of the supply of REE raw ores. The United States and its allies have another 40 percent, according to the Legion article, but production that once was robust in western countries is now nil.

In fact, there is supposed to be a huge concentration of REEs in Nebraska, but it is in the form of raw ore, not processed metals that can be sold to America's high-tech industries.

And, as an interesting aside, another large concentration of REE raw ores lies in Afghanistan. Think about how much better things would be for the Afghans and the rest of the world if opium poppy production was curtailed and replaced with a booming REE production instead. Afghans would have a viable source of income and a reason to move into the high-technology fields - as a nation!

Many countries mined REEs until the mid-1990s, when, during the Clinton Administration, China began undercutting world prices for REEs and the response from the US was to curtail our own production. Now, even though there still are myriad sources of REEs, China has virtual control of the entire market.

Unfortunately, it will take until somewhere around 2015 for the world outside China to reestablish its production facilities so we are pretty much up against the wall until then. Four years is an eternity in the fast moving world of electronics, with a new generation emerging every 9 months or so. And on a national scale, although there are numerous print articles on this issue, for some reason they don't seem to get same attention as the latest gaffe by a politician - as long as that politician is not President Barack Hussein Obama.

There is one silver lining in this cloud, however. If the Chinese communists continue to curtail production - they say it is to protect scarce resources and avoid over-exploitation - they run the risk of aggravating one of the potentially most explosive segments of the US population. No, I am not talking about teen-aged boys and their video games, I am talking about the "Occupy" crowd that rails against capitalism and all its evils, doing so on their cell phones, smart phones and using the electronic media to provide propaganda outlets.

What an incredible opportunity to take a bunch of smelly, filthy, unclean totally stupid fanatics, and turn their energy to a good purpose. If they want to block American shipping ports, then let them block the Chinese docks and prevent their ships from unloading. That would be a prime example of real world, bare knuckles trading, unfettered by politicians who write our import laws to favor the Chinese so they can feather their own overstuffed nests even more.

Actually, the Occupy denizens could well be used in conjunction with the Tea Party believers, with the Occupiers blocking Chinese imports while the Tea Party helps toss out all the bottom feeding politicians who write regulations that stymie American manufacturing while helping our enemies. Real world politics, working in conjunction with real world trade embargoes could change a lot for America and the rest of the free world in a very short time.

Remember that other quote from Mad Max: "If you have nothing to trade, you have no business in Bartertown!"

Hillary Clinton vs. Vladimir Putin; Cage Match, Don't Miss It!

2011-12-09T13:11:00.000-05:00

The world's best known unrepentant communist, Vladimir Putin, traded nasty words this week with the world's best known closet communist, Hillary Clinton, and their war appears to be escalating.

My money is on Putin, but that doesn't mean he should take Clinton lightly. She spoke out after the national elections in Russia gave Putin's party a slight victory, but a victory nonetheless, assisting him in his drive to become Russia's president again. Clinton bemoaned the widespread allegations of ballot box stuffing and voter fraud.

In her defense there apparently was so much chicanery going on in Russia that it made America's presidential election of 2008 look legal! At least the Russian voters have a reasonably complete resume on Putin's background.

Mrs. Clinton, in her role as Secretary of State, made a number of unflattering remarks about Putin's involvement and he in turn said she is encouraging his opponents who are protesting the election results.

Putin's ruling United Russia party won about 50 percent of the vote, down from 64 percent four years ago, and barely held onto its majority in the Russian parliament, according to media reports. Putin was nominated earlier this year to run for president again and the United Russia party also approved his proposal that Russia's current president, Dmitry Medvedev, take over Putin's current role as prime minister.

Putin took over as Prime Minister after serving as president from 2000-2008, stepping down due to term limits. But Medvedev is viewed as a caretaker president and presumably will become a caretaker prime minister if Putin becomes president again. Putin rules with an iron fist, and doesn't bother to hide it inside a velvet glove.

Putin says hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign funds were used to sway the vote against his party, which means against him. He said Mrs Clinton "gave a signal" to his opponents, and warned that those working for foreign governments - which in Russian translates to "anyone I don't like" - to influence Russian politics would be held accountable. And to back up his position he called out tens of thousands of police and some Army troops too.

You may note that he called up the police to a much greater degree than the Army. That should tell you something about the state of political affairs in Russia today. Ah for the good old days of secret police, repression, gulags and the Cold War.

The international media tends to dismiss Putin as a lightweight, latter-day communist who yearns for the old Soviet Union. Back then he was in charge of the KGB and could pretty much get whatever he wanted just by giving someone his infamous ice-cold stare from those eyes that George Bush once looked deep into, coming away reassured.

I don't agree with that assessment - either of Putin as a lightweight or that we should be reassured with what we see in his eyes. I think Putin lets you see exactly what he wants you to see and not one bit more. Putin may have some odd ideas about what constitutes good media relations, like hunting tigers and planting ancient artifacts in locations where he is scuba diving so he can "discover" them, but that should not be used as a reason for ignoring where he is going and what he is doing.

Whether we like it or not he is still a driving force - perhaps THE driving force - in the world's largest country by land mass.

If you want to see the results of Putin's long term view of the world you have only to look at Russia's annexation of one-fifth of the country of Georgia in 2008. This was the culmination of years of planning and executing an overall strategy that used manipulation of another country's internal affairs, and wholesale slaughter of ethnic Georgians especially in the areas the Kremlin wanted.

Putin wasn't president when the Soviet Union fell, and he was between terms when the actual invasion took place, but you can bet he was up to his armpits in the effort to annex parts of Georgia - which itself was a continuation of centuries of repression. The most recent assault on Georgia was not designed or executed by simpletons or weaklings.

In fact it was brutality unleashed by a government that to this day has not really come to terms with the fact that most of the world rejects communism because most of the world can see that it doesn't work.

Clinton for her part, was on a speech-making roll this week, both with her comments on the Russian election and her support for US President Barack Hussein Obama's decision to use American foreign aid to support gay rights in countries where repression is common. That may be a big bite of a sour apple considering that many Asian, African and Micronesian countries are controlled by Muslim leaders who aren't exactly known for their tolerance levels.

Nonetheless, Clinton looked pretty strong as she crossed the stage to the podium where she delivered her support for the president. Dressed in slacks and a suit jacket she had a determined set to her shoulders, and a strong, purposeful stride that offset the teeny-bopper ponytail hair style she has been affecting of late.

I guess we could try to arrange an arm-wrestling match between Clinton and Putin but I believe he has the edge there too. And we have to consider that since both Clinton and Putin are communists - the American media would probably say that Clinton doesn't have a membership card to the Communist Party, but they would admit she is "pro-communist" which is essentially the same thing - this could all just be for show.

I don't see the Obama Administration as being necessarily opposed to Russia regaining the oppressive stature it had when it ran the Soviet Union,

But image only takes you so far and the thing about Putin is that you don't toy with him, even if you think he is in on it. Remember, he not only survived, he thrived in a system where your best friend today could order your execution tomorrow - or actually tonight, very late, when everyone else is asleep and people know better than to look out the window when the secret police kick down their neighbor's door.

Clinton and Obama should keep those things in mind.

GOP "Elite" Lynches Cain; Brit Hume, Bill Kristol for President?

2011-12-04T13:36:00.000-05:00

The unbeatable combination of a propaganda-based American media, Republican elitists who don't want a black man running for president under the GOP banner, and cross party help from Democrats supporting Barack Hussein Obama succeeded in lynching the presidential hopes of Herman Cain Saturday.

Considering that two of the most conservative Republican political pundits, Brit Hume and Bill Kristol, both of whom are employed by FOX News, were in on the assassination I feel it is only fair to nominate them to run for president in his place. It's not that I think they could do a good job as president; frankly I don't think either of them could find their own asses with both hands, a road map, a mirror and a flashlight.

But since they seem to believe it is appropriate to use their status as national journalists to misrepresent events and push their own agenda, I think it is only fair that we put them up on the dais and start taking a close look at their backgrounds. I bet we could find more pay dirt in less time than that clueless crew on the Discovery Channel's Gold Rush Alaska.

Cain, a black businessman who was the GOP frontrunner until his political enemies realized with horror that he could win the nomination and reform the current tax system that literally makes indentured servants out of America's workers, was forced to withdraw from the race after facing an onslaught of unsubstantiated sexual allegations from a series of women of questionable repute.

Although Cain was never charged with anything remotely resembling a crime (unlike former Democratic President Bill Clinton who has been accused of being a serial rapist) and flat-out denied the allegations, including offering to tax a lie detector test if his accusers would – they wouldn't – he nonetheless was convicted in the media. American media outlets without exception began the onslaught in late October by falsely reporting that four women had "come forth" with claims of sexual improprieties more than a decade ago when Cain headed the National Restaurant Association.

Actually, no one came forth initially. So to overcome the obvious bias in reporting, a Democratic operative from Chicago, Sharon Bialek – pronounced Buy A Lick – stepped into the limelight. However, although the media knew it, very few outlets reported that she was directly tied to Obama's former senior adviser David Axelrod – including living in the same apartment building and seeing him socially – when she made a media splash with Democratic lawyer Gloria Allred.

Bialek claimed Cain had groped her in an automobile in the late 1990's but her story didn't hold up and at the end of last week she was evicted from her hoity-toity apartment building. Good, now's she's homeless and we can only hope she spends the winter living in a box on a heating vent.

Bialek was followed by a very reluctant Karen Kraushaar who didn’t come forward herself but was outed by her brother-in-law. As it turns out, Ms. Kraushaar, like Cain's other accusers, has a history of financial difficulties and even other claims of sexual harassment, in which she attempted to force at least one previous boss in addition to Cain to make a generous settlement in her favor.

She in turn was followed by Ginger White, who was described in the Christian Science Monitor as speaking slowly and in a monotone when interviewed by Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos on national TV.

Know why? Because a private investigator who uses an advanced piece of machinery that operates on voice stress levels – and is considered to be 95 percent accurate, far better than traditional lie detectors – taped both Cain and Bialek during their respective press conferences in November. His machine showed that Cain told the truth when he denied Bialek's accusations and Bialek was shown to be lying!

Obviously White's handlers figured it was best to keep her totally under control and insufficient as a subject for a lie detection session. White, a 46-year-old unemployed single mother who has at last two divorces and a paternity suit (that did NOT involve Cain) in her background, was described by station WAGA as also having filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer ten years ago. That case was settled, the station reported.

White also is involved in an unrelated lawsuit with a former business partner, female bodybuilder Kimberly Vay, who sought a protective order against White after alleging that White stalked and harassed her. News reports say a judge entered a default judgment in Vay's favor in the case which is said to also include allegations of libel.

White says she had a 13-year sexual relationship with Cain that ended only about eight months ago when he declared that he was running for president. I see. And just how much sex did they supposedly have five years ago when Cain was battling two forms of cancer that both required aggressive chemotherapy that is pretty much the opposite of Viagra in the "let's do it a lot" department?

Can you imagine any of these women on the witness stand if they had to go to trial to air their claims against Cain in a court of law? They'd be laughed out of court if they even got that far. Jury members and even judges would probably have a hard time keeping a straight face.

Well, unless one of the jurors was Bill Kristol whose own history regarding black conservatives in politics gives a pretty good indication that he just might take the word of a Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard over any black man!

Think not? Consider this. Kristol has a bunch of letters after his name, and he was indeed educated in Harvard, a bastion of conservative political thought and action (sarcasm implied and intended.)

But while he posits himself as a big time mover and shaker in the political arena, his only foray into elective politics was as was the campaign manager for Alan Keyes' 1988 Maryland Senatorial campaign. Keyes is a black conservative Republican with very strong libertarian leanings, so much so that he can probably be favorably compared to Ron Paul.

But all of Kristol's academic achievements were totally ineffective in the real world of bare knuckle politics and Keyes' campaign, run by Kristol was unsuccessful!
After failing in Keyes' campaign, Kristol's next big move in elective party politics was to lead the charge in throwing Michael Steele out as party chairman. Steele, who was the highly popular Lt. Governor of Maryland, is – you guessed it – a black conservative.

Some of the allegations against Steele were simply ludicrous. For instance he was held responsible for the charges on a GOP credit card used by an employee in California who took clients to a nudie bar. That's analogous to holding the Commandant of the Marine Corps who works in Washington, responsible for the actions of a Lance Corporal out on liberty in Oceanside, CA.

Kristol has a history of trying to straddle both sides of the political divide, including portraying himself as an arch-conservative while also writing for the New York Times. But Kristol developed a reputation for misquoting people at the Times and his one-year tenure there ended two years ago.

Now we have Herman Cain, or we did have Herman Cain another black, conservative Republican. His 9-9-9 tax reform plan is dead, the status quo inside the DC Beltway will stay put, and regardless of which candidate or party prevails in the 2012 presidential election, one-half of America's workers will still be carrying the rest of the country's burdens on our shoulders while smug pieces of elephant dung like Kristol pat themselves on the back.

Does all of this add up to proof that Kristol is racist? Not at all. It could all be just coincidental. But if you were to see this written up in the media and broadcast on every single national news outlet, what would you think – especially if any evidence to the contrary was not revealed, or contained in paragraph 30 of a 30-paragraph story?

There is one lesson that can be applied from what we have seen in the last four weeks. The next up and coming black conservative is retired US Army Lt. Col. Allen West who has a huge following in and out of the GOP. He was elected to Congress in Florida, and he certainly is eyeing the next step on the national stage.

If I were Lt. Col. West I would take one piece of advice from the Cain debacle; using the adage that says keep your friends close and your enemies closer, I would get as close as possible to Bill Kristol and others of his ilk, but always, always, watch your back.

Next up: What you don’t know about Brit Hume.

Of Giants and Eagles and Packers Oh My!

2011-11-21T11:24:00.005-05:00

The Philadelphia Eagles slapped the New York Giants around the gridiron for four quarters Sunday evening, treating them like recalcitrant children who shouldn't be playing a man's game, and eventually winning by a touchdown.

Thus the Eagles have kept their dismal season alive, and made the job of reaching playoffs harder for the Giants who now have lost two in a row, which should make Bill Sternberg happy, although I am none too pleased about it.

But this isn't so much about the Giants and Eagles as much as it is about Bill Sternberg and the time I almost was wrong in a blog column.

If you go to the archives on my blog site and dig way back into February 2008, you will find that I wrote about the Giants facing the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl that year. I also mentioned that I had been a Giants fan since my grade school days when Bill Sternberg got me interested in football.

You see, I grew up in a deprived household in that my father, who played semi-pro basketball and baseball, never gave a damn about football - although my cousins and uncles were big fans. Thus, while I could talk Mantle and Mays and Berra, read extensively about Roy Campanella and even could give somewhat of a history lesson on people like Ruth and Gehrig, I knew next to nothing about downs and field goals and halfbacks or even quarterbacks.

Then I heard Bill Sternberg talking excitedly one day in what was probably the 8th grade, about some guy named Y. A. Tittle. Turns out he was the former quarterback for the 49ers, heading to the New York Giants and I figured if he was good enough for Sternberg he was good enough for me.

It has been a very long time since the 8th grade and a year longer since the 7th grade which figures in this and I'll get to it in a minute.

But two weeks ago I received a phone call from another old friend from days gone by, my pal Bob Soloyna, known to those of us who hung together way back then as The Rock. He was called that because Soloyna was and is, strong, very strong, and he eventually fought a bunch of heavyweight boxing matches out in the Pacific Fleet during his many tours to Vietnam with the US Navy.

My understanding is that if he got into the ring someone was going to be knocked out and it wasn't The Rock.

Anyway, Bob, who lives in the same neighborhood where we grew up, only a mile or so from his family home, and about the same distance from Sternberg, called and asked if I would be interested in meeting them at the Red Lion Inn, in Stockbridge, Massachusetts for lunch the following week.

I agreed, called my buddy John, known in these parts as The Duke, and the following Wednesday we took off for Massachusetts.

However, when I was talking with Bob Soloyna he had the phone on speaker so I could also talk with Bill Sternberg, whom I had not seen in about 20 years. Bill said he had heard about the column I wrote in which I attributed my interest in Giants football to him, because even though he wouldn't be caught dead on the Internet, he did have a co-worker who read the column.

As we spoke I said that I remembered him talking about Y. A. Tittle, who was a quarterback first for for the Colts and then the 49ers until the 49ers traded him to the Giants in 1961, the year we graduated from the 8th grade. I said I became a Giants fan due to Bill liking them, a statement that was greeted at the time with silence.

A week later, at the Red Lion Inn the silence ended when Bill said he was never, ever, no way in hell a Giants fan and had been an Eagles fan since the 7th grade! The Eagles! We grew up in upstate New York where we had so many professional sports teams from which to choose that you never had to go further west than Buffalo or further south than Brooklyn, and Sternberg opts to be a lifetime fan of the Eagles! AAARRRGGGHHH!

Oh, before I forget it, if you want a really good meal in really comfortable surroundings try the Red Lion Inn. You can choose from the dining room which is very nice, but not too formal, or the lounge which is done up in dark wood, everywhere, and which we really liked. I got a pint of the Berkshire Brewing Company Extra Pale Ale which was great, and I highly recommend the sausage and cheddar soup.

Anyway, Bill straightened me out on his favorite sports teams, which also includes the Cincinnati Reds, another selection that defies explanation, but hey, this is America after all. And get this, he and Soloyna both remembered that they declared their intentions way back in the 7th grade.

And then they start talking sports history as if it was still 1959, so much so that I could envision my late Dad sitting in the living room doing the same thing while watching his favorite baseball team - the Cleveland Indians! My father came to America from Scotland when he was in grade school, and worked as an usher at Yankee Stadium when he was a teen.

He could tell you the seating layout at Dodger Stadium as well, and was a walking encyclopedia of sports trivia from the New York teams especially, yet when he grows up he becomes a fan of CLEVELAND? What was in the water back then? I mean, I can understand him being pissed at the Dodgers and (baseball) Giants for leaving New York in 1958 and heading out west, but hell, the Yankees are still there!

Anyway, when I got home from lunch I went immediately to my column archives with the sick feeling inside that I had gotten it wrong about Bill and determined to correct a three year old error. Turns out, I didn't have to.

As I reread my column from 2008 I realized that when I wrote it I remembered Bill being the first guy to mention Y.A. Tittle, but never actually saying he liked the guy. And since I wasn't sure whether Bill was actually a Giants fan, I never said he was!

So I don't have to correct an old column, but at least I can correct any erroneous impressions I may have left behind.

I also want to make a point about my favorite teams. I like the Giants and even though they brought their "B" game to the field the last two weeks, I still am wearing one of my Giants sweatshirts as I write this. But I also have a second tier of teams that I usually don't get to see on Sundays but generally keep an eye on just because they have certain something about them.

These include the Green Bay Packers, Oakland Raiders, San Francisco 49ers, even though they don't like the Raiders and vice versa, Da Bears, and the Buffalo Bills. They are all good teams who play hard, tough football, and have legions of loyal fans, of which the Cheeseheads in Green Bay really stand out.

And I should point out that I have family in the Philadelphia area, some of whom obviously have been brainwashed and don't see me enough because they too are Eagles fans - although my daughter enjoys going to Eagles games wearing a Giants jersey which I think is the height of in-your-face fandom.

She also has met Justin Tuck and I would invite Mr. Tuck, who played well yesterday even if many of his teammates did not, to tell the other members of the team that they have a five-foot, two-inch fan who wears their jerseys to Eagles games and takes on all comers, so why can't they?

Where the hell is their pride? Three perfect passes from Manning to wide open receivers dropped like hot potatoes?? C'mon!

Before I go I'd also like to leave you with a message regarding the Packers that came from a friend yesterday. Last year after the Packers-Bills game, Buffalo released quarterback Trent Edwards. During the Packers-Eagles game, the Packers injured Philadelphia quarterback Kevin Kolb.

Philadelphia then had to play backup quarterback Michael Vick. During a playoff game against the Eagles, the Packers injured Michael Vick and another backup was needed.

After the Packers-Cowboys game, Dallas fired Wade Phillips and most of his staff. After the Packers-Vikings game, Minnesota fired Brad Childress and most of his staff.

Four weeks after losing to the Packers, the 49er's coach Mike Singletary and most of his staff were fired and replaced. During the Bears Playoff game, the Packers injured Jay Cutler and backup Todd Collins forcing the Bears to go with 3rd string quarterback Caleb Hanie.

Here's the question ... Did the Packers create more jobs last year than Obama?

And you thought this was only about football.

Still, after all these years I have to face the realization that Bill Sternberg is a lifelong Eagles fan. Oh well, I suppose it could be worse. He could have been rooting for the Cowboys, or the Redskins!

Flawed Fox Poll Targets Gingrich, Stiffs Cain

2011-11-16T21:04:00.003-05:00

FOX News released a minimal sampling of alleged registered voters Tuesday – calling it a "poll" – that it claims elevates Newt Gingrich to Target of the Week status.

The so-called poll is so lacking in credibility that any professional newsman with an ounce of pride would have resigned rather than broadcasting it as a game-changing barometer of public opinion.

The poll – which should be renamed a "self-fulfilling prophecy" – demotes previous frontrunner Herman Cain to also ran-status, while lauding Mitt Romney as the only consistent performer in the GOP primary field, even if he can’t get more than 25 percent of the votes on his best day. The sampling was so small that the margin of error was plus or minus 5 percent, which means that any of the results within 10 points of each other could just as easily be reversed.

And, to add insult to insult, 60 percent of those polled said they aren't firm in their opinions and could change their mind and vote for someone else.

In other words, the poll is worthless. But that won't stop FOX or any other propaganda outlet from spewing it as gospel.

The horrendously flawed poll interviewed only 370 people nationwide who claim to be GOP primary voters, some of whom were called on cell phones, the rest on landlines. So much for identity verification.

During a day of hyping its hype, FOX also delivered the news to its viewers and critics alike that since Gingrich, the former speaker of the US House of Representatives, is the newly media-designated frontrunner, he now is the next target of its relentless, merciless, and quite often baseless assaults. They even had one of their "pundits" or "analysts" on to say that this is exactly what the campaign needs because it will make Romney a stronger candidate.

Fox news has made it clear that it intends to do whatever is necessary to ensure that Romney gets the GOP nomination to face President Barack Hussein Obama.

The Washington and Manhattan "elitists," a term I use while trying very hard not to laugh since they obviously are brain dead lemmings, long ago decided that it is Romney's turn to be president and there better not be any interlopers from outside their inner circles trying to change that. The "poll results" support that contention, even though Romney hasn’t been able to capture significant support within the electorate despite at least six years of campaigning.

Gingrich has been creeping up in the polls in recent weeks as his performances in a series of debates has showcased his wide knowledge of the US government, world affairs and real world solutions to the nation's economic woes. In what could have been seen as a precursor to future events, Gingrich and Cain even participated in a "debate" with each other earlier this month, that seemed designed to show that they could work well together.

Fox broadcasters throughout the day sounded the alert that Gingrich, who was counted out of the race a year ago by these same brainiacs, was about to receive the same treatment Cain has undergone when he was falsely accused of sexual harassment. Fox broadcasters have routinely lied to their viewers during the assault on Cain, saying "four women have come forth" to accuse him of inappropriate behavior.

In fact only one woman came forth, well after the media began reporting that three "anonymous" accusers were raising the sexual harassment issue. None of them ever actually "came forth," but Fox as well as the other mainstream media outlets have shied away from reporting that the one who did pop up is regularly in financial and legal difficulties – despite her denials that her finances had anything to do with her sudden appearance.

The accuser, Sharon Bialek – pronounced Buy A Lick – who appeared with a publicity seeking lawyer who makes major contributions to the Democrat party, also was linked the Obama White House thorough his former senior adviser David Axelrod.

A second accuser who said she wanted to stay anonymous and avoid reliving her terrible ordeal at Cain's hands was outed by her brother-in-law, and it was quickly learned that she has a history of making sexual harassment claims, including another one against the federal government where she now works for the Obama Administration.

In that case she complained about a boss who sent an Internet joke around the office that compared men to computers by saying "they both have to be turned on to get anything done." Cain's alleged "crime" according to that accuser was saying that she was the same height as his wife.

It is likely that Cain was hurt to some degree in the polls although he has addressed that issue directly numerous times. Cain could well recover when you consider how many people in the FOX "poll" said they could change their minds, and his fund-raising actually has improved drastically since the allegations surfaced.

Cain also flatly denied any of the allegations against him, attributed them to the vicious political climate that exists in America and said he would take a lie detector test - when the women who made the claims against him take one too. That should help.

Gingrich is now in for the same treatment that Cain endured, and there are many who say he deserves it. But Americans are looking for a leader who will help the country out of the financial morass it is in, and his conduct in public certainly gives Gingrich a boost.

It was Gingrich who admonished his fellow candidates months ago not to give in to the media efforts to set them against each other, but few listened to his advice.

Now FOX and the other Democrat propaganda outlets will jump on him for his marital history, and any mistake, real, imagined or fabricated that he ever made. Every misstatement will be cast as evidence that he is deliberately misleading the public, and any misstep in his life, no matter how long ago or irrelevant, will be portrayed as a black mark on his character.

Frankly, I'm hoping Gingrich and Cain survive and make the primaries a real horse race. Then I can write a column telling FOX news and the other propagandists to stuff it, the Internet is the place for real news, AND the best barometer of public opinion.

Reuters Lies While FOX News Sells Sex

2011-11-14T11:17:00.004-05:00

Two weeks after anonymous, highly suspect, and ultimately unproven claims of sexual harassment surfaced against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, the media is scratching its collective head that he is holding fast and his fund-raising has gone exponential – in his favor.

But some in the media are still trying to stack the deck against Cain, apparently because Mitt Romney is supposed to be the heir apparent to the throne now held by President Barack Hussein Obama. But Romney is seen by many Republicans as Obama lite, and can't break out of the pack, even though challengers have repeatedly come forth, and fallen back, until now.

Cain polled first in Florida last week, well after the media assault on him peaked, with 30 percent support. Romney still was in the mid-20s, and former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich was surging – up from single digits only a few weeks ago to 19 percent last Tuesday.

But that was the Rasmussen poll, which has a very high trustworthy rating in my book, and included 788 likely Republican primary voters. It was conducted on November 8, 2011, the margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Now let's go to the Reuters/IPSOS poll that claims Cain, a black conservative businessman, is losing support with GOP voters.

Reuters is a British news agency headquartered in London that actually is part of Thompson Reuters, a massive, global media conglomerate, headquartered in Canada that does a lot of work out its Stamford, Connecticut offices and seems to have an inordinate interest in manipulation of American political views. Its report says:

Ipsos/ Reuters Poll: Herman Cain's Ratings Post Press Conference
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Washington, DC - Ipsos has undertaken a third overnight poll on behalf of Thomson Reuters on the subject of Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain. This poll, published today, showed participants a video excerpt from yesterday’s press conference with Sharon Bialek, who has accused Cain of inappropriate behavior.

The poll is among Republican Registered Voters, and finds that two in five (39%) believe that the allegations presented by Bialek are true – and an equal number believe they are untrue (38%). In addition, 40% say that watching the video makes them less favorable towards Herman Cain.

Now, here's the rub, directly from the Reuters press statement on the poll. These findings are from an online omnibus survey of 462 Republican Registered Voters. Individuals were interviewed via a U.S. online household panel.

What? They do this poll online where it is virtually impossible to verify the identity of the respondent, they only interview 462 people, and they show participants a video of Sharon Bialek's accusations prior to asking them what they think of Cain?

Where is the poll showing what people think after they saw a video of Cain's press conference along with a rundown of Bialek's financial situation and her history of lawsuits and job turnovers? Is there one? Apparently not.

Fox News contributor Byron York jumped on the bandwagon today claiming that a Wall Street Journal "poll" shows that Cain's support slipped noticeably from last week to this week. Guess how many people were "polled?" One hundred and two.

One hundred and two people constitute a poll only when the total demographic is 102 people. Otherwise it is a coffee klatch. Shame on WSJ, York and Fox for this manipulative piece of misinformation.

The best poll on the results of the media assault on Cain is his fund-raising success. Cain received more donations from October 1 to November 8 than he did in the previous five months! We're talking more than $9 million folks! Even as the media continues to undermine him to this day!

Cain also had a fund-raiser on his website specifically to raise money for a concerted effort in Iowa where the first GOP caucus vote will be held in January.

Cain wanted to raise $999,000 – after his 9-9-9 tax reform plan – and gave himself five days to reach the goal. He was chugging along pretty much on target, and then he did two things that changed it all. He appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel show, where he was friendly, urbane and humorous, and he then held his press conference.

Within hours of the end of his press conference, a full 24-hours before his deadline, Cain broke through the $999,000 mark and blasted through the $1 million level! People obviously wanted to hear from him, and when they did, they responded.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll is not a reliable barometer of anything. Neither is the WSJ poll.

Now, while we're talking about sex let's talk about the hypocrisy of the news media.

I am picking on FOX here because it is the place I get most of my news. Over the years I have ceased watching all network news shows because they are untrustworthy, along with most of the cable news outlets.

I used to watch FOX News off and on from dawn to dusk but the last couple of months the biases of many of the "personalities" – including using polls that turn out to not be any more reliable than the Ipsos poll above – have turned me off to much of that broadcasting too. I'm down to Bret Baier at 6 p.m., Neil Cavuto at 4 p.m. and Stuart Varney at 9:20 a.m. on the Fox Business channel. Everyone else is out.

If you turn on the TV first thing in the morning, and tune in to Fox and Friends, what do you see? Well you have a great chance of seeing Steve Doucy and Brian Kilmeade sitting on the big couch on either side of Gretchen Carlson, who is beautiful, shapely, and has very nice legs.

How do I know she has nice legs? Because the camera regularly cuts away and shows her sitting on the couch wearing a short skirt, with her legs crossed, hands folded demurely in her lap.

Now jump to 9 a.m. when Martha MacCullem teams up with Bill Hemmer on America's Newsroom. Another drop dead gorgeous blonde, who once again has really nice legs, which I know because again, the camera regularly cuts away to shows of her lower extremities!

FOX News Anchor Jenna Lee, courtesy of Getty Images Entertainment

Then at 11 a.m. there is Jon Scott and Jenna Lee, who isn't quite blonde but has a beauty of the "triple Wow" factor, and once again, really, really nice legs.

FOX News Anchor Megyn Kelly courtesy of GQ

Oh, and let us not forget Megyn Kelly at noon with America Live. Be still my beating heart.

In fact, there is not one single full-time female anchor or correspondent, covering any issue, bureau or department, foreign or domestic, working for Fox News who is not on the "triple Wow to drop-dead gorgeous" scale. But don't be fooled by their overwhelming beauty. These are very, very smart, talented ladies and with law degrees, PhD degrees and world experiences that make them the best in the field.

But I still know that they have beautiful, shapely legs and that proves my point. Know why? Because I have no idea what Neil Cavuto, Bret Baier or Stuart Varney's legs look like, nor do I want to!

So what is the lesson we learn from this? Sex sells.

People turn their TVs to the Fox channel to see the beautiful women, and stay tuned in because they are smart and good at what they do. But when they jump on the misinformation bandwagon and start pushing an agenda rather than news, people like me turn off the TV and go to the Internet for our information fix.

The media was blatant in its efforts to crush Cain instead of doing its own digging and reporting the real news, not an agenda. At least on the Internet the blog writers and news sites are up front about their biases and we can determine for ourselves who to believe or not.

FOX news might want to think about that; the Wall Street Journal too.

Cain Campaign Gets Boost From Dem Hatchet Woman!

2011-11-07T16:23:00.007-05:00

If I was in a knock-down, drag-out campaign war with everything on the line - and I have been numerous times - I could not have wished for a better scenario than Herman Cain was handed by a media hungry Democratic operative Monday afternoon.

California wannabe panjandrum lawyer and Democratic operative Gloria Allred, who recently told FOX television host Sean Hannity that she enjoyed being groped by Transportation Security Agency workers at the airport, staged a press conference in which another unsubstantiated and unprovable claim of sexual harassment was lodged against Cain.

Although three previous accusers were anonymous, this time the "accuser" Sharon Bialek - pronounced Buy A Lick - made a personal claim that the alleged impropriety occurred back in the 90s in a limo occupied by her and Cain. She said Cain made a physical advance to her, but backed off when she told him to stop.

If that is the definition now in use for harassment every teen-aged boy who ever went to a prom or senior ball is in deep trouble. Bialek explained her presence in a limo with Cain by saying she wanted to talk with Cain about her employment status, although she was not employed by the National Restaurant Association which he then headed, and there were no witnesses, and she has no other way to verify her allegations.

Cain's camp immediately denied the allegations and said she was lying.

Rush Limbaugh said on his show Monday that Bialek hails from Chicago, home of such Democratic stalwarts as Rham Emanuel, former chief of staff to Barack Hussein Obama, and while we're on the subject, Barack Hussein Obama himself, who could face Cain in next year's presidential race if Cain is nominated.

Bialek said she was appearing today in support of the three other anonymous, and so far unknown, unseen, and unproven "accusers" who have not come forth but who - if they actually exist - have used another lawyer to spread allegations about Cain. However, Bialek said she does not intend to file a lawsuit, which prompts the question, then why did she hire a celebrity lawyer to accompany her?

As far as I could tell from the coverage that existed on her "press conference," no one thought to ask that question. Bialek said she made no formal complaint when the alleged incident occurred more than a decade ago either.

And, she also claims that while she told her then boyfriend and another male "mentor" that Cain had been "very sexually inappropriate" with her, she didn't go into the details. Apparently neither of these "men" who were supposedly so close to her, asked her to explain what she meant by "very sexually inappropriate."

This is right out of The Terminator. Even if she could produce her "mentor" and her then boyfriend - and she claimed to have affidavits from them - they couldn't provide any details on which they could be questioned for the purpose of impeaching her claims. Classic. Another Democrat bashing another black man and assuming they can get away with it because he is black.

This is exactly what happened to Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for the Supreme Court twenty years ago. Exactly.

By the way, have you noticed that this time around the Dems and their elitist GOP allies have canonized these anonymous women, because obviously if they charged a black man with a crime he MUST be guilty? But when Bill Clinton was charged with sexual ASSAULT, not harassment, ASSAULT, it was the women who were the objects of the Democrats' and the media vitriol?

Cain meanwhile, is riding a wave of popularity despite the media and the national Republican elite attempting to derail his campaign over the unproven and unsupported allegations. In fact Cain has a fund-raiser underway on his website in which he is hoping to raise $999,000 to launch at all-out campaign drive in Iowa.

As of 5 p.m. today he was at the $700,000 mark and climbing, after only four days.

I also had to laugh today when a new ABC news poll - I know, ABC news, a contradiction in terms - tried to portray Mitt Romney as the candidate that most Republicans think can win against Obama.

There was a 12 point spread between Cain in second place, and Romney. But hidden at the bottom of the poll graphic displayed on FOX news was the note that it involved only 438 people identified as "leaning Republican," meaning not necessarily Republicans or even voters. The "poll" had a margin of error of 5.5 percentage points, which actually put Cain and Romney in a statistical dead heat.

If 438 people came to my local elementary school auditorium for a Veterans Day event, there were be enough room for twice that number again. I seriously doubt they represent an accurate view of what the real Republican electorate is thinking.

I can't stand it when news organizations that are entrusted with the First Amendment, one of the most cherished and fundamental rights afforded to Americans under our Constitution, use that right to mislead the public.

Anyway, the latest accusation against Cain is so ludicrous, and so lacking in accountability, not to mention credibility, that only the mainstream media -and those who are in the tank for Cain's opponents, Republicans and Democrats alike, would give it serious coverage.

Rush Limbaugh was blasting Allred today, who is credited with derailing Meg Whitman's campaign against Jerry Brown for Governor of California. Last year she staged a similar press conference in which a former domestic worker who was employed by Whitman claimed Whitman knew she was an illegal alien - similar to what Rick Perry claimed about Mitt Romney last month.

Whitman denied the allegation and said the woman filled out standard IRS and Social Security forms when she was hired in 2000. Nonetheless, Allred's tactics helped defeat Whitman and Brown is now the governor. Did you see the stories on the "occupy" riots in Oakland last week? Do you think that crap would have happened if Whitman was governor? Just wondering.

So, with Republicans already despising Allred, a story of "inappropriateness" that is remarkable only for the inability to question it in full or in part, no witnesses, and some very questionable political connections, Herman Cain is sure to get a boost from this farce.

Maybe next week we can talk about the economy.

The GOP Elite; Why They Hate Herman Cain

2011-11-06T13:07:00.008-05:00

Before I get into the heart of this issue I have to ask a serious question: Is the lawyer we see on television claiming to have evidence of a sexual harassment charge against Herman Cain a transgender person?

Or alternatively, does this person have multiple personalities that manifest themselves in public settings?

The reason I ask this question is because television air heads keep saying that "three women have come forth” with allegations against Cain, but in a weeklong media onslaught that appears to be unprecedented in media onslaught history, only this lawyer showed up. And he keeps using the pronoun "We."

For instance, I tuned in FOX News last night and at 6:35 p.m. another of the damnable "panels" came on, in which a guy named Douglas Shoen claimed that "three women have now come forth" to allege sexual harassment by Herman Cain. Actually, no one has come forward, and that statement is false.

But instead of naming the women, or showing interviews with them, or anything that would prove they even exist, FOX switched to file footage of this lawyer. No client standing in the background, just another lawyer making allegations that would not stand the credibility test if Herman Cain was anyone other than a black, conservative Republican.

In file footage and newspaper accounts, this lawyer says on behalf of the Phantom Accuser, "She has decided not to relive the specifics of the incident," because it would be "extremely painful" for her to do so.

OK, so Herman Cain and his family aren’t going through an excruciatingly painful assault on him and his credibility with no one he can confront, and no specifics even about the supposed claims? The lawyer wouldn't disclose what was alleged either, saying only "We're not going to get more specific about what was physical, what was verbal. It qualified as sexual harassment in our opinion."

Now this guy was standing in front of a media crush ALONE! And he kept saying "WE" and "OUR" instead of "me, myself or I." So I ask again, is he the real person who made the allegations against Herman Cain more than a decade ago? Was this lawyer a woman then, and has he since had sex change surgery? Or is he a Sybil type character who pops up in a different incarnations?

If not why is he the only person we have ever seen making claims against Cain?

It seems, based on the comments I see from the public at the ends of many of print stories on this issue, that the only people who are being fooled here are the air heads who keep saying that anyone has come forth.

So, to Douglas Shoen, Shepherd Smith and anyone else on any other network, electronic or print outlet who has repeated this claim, could you people name one of these accusers? Just one?

You say she exists, so that means you know who she is, and you know who the others are. Why don't your viewers know who she is? Her name, please.

Silence. Just as I suspected.

Remember the movie Harvey with James Stewart playing an alcoholic who said he was accompanied by a six-foot invisible rabbit? How about Julia Roberts and Robin Williams in Hook – "If you can't imagine yourself being Peter Pan, you won't be Peter Pan"?

It took a lot of imagination to do these films, and it takes a lot of imagination to believe the media in its unsuccessful effort to crush Herman Cain. Maybe, ala Harvey, many in the D.C. beltway and Manhattan media "elite" are drunk on their own presumed power.

I found it interesting that the Real Clear Politics average of polls measuring Herman Cain's standing in the GOP field found him nearly three points ahead of everyone else even after nearly a week of an unspeakably vicious fusillade. In the Rasmussen poll, which was the only one that actually interviewed 1,000 respondents, the threshold for credibility in polling, Cain was up even further.

Now, here's why the GOP elitists, the Country Club Republicans, are so afraid of Cain. Unlike their self-anointed gurus of schlock, Cain deals with hard cold facts - numbers, and how they add up, or not. Inside-the-beltway types deal with appearances and they haven’t grasped that a huge segment of the American public is wise to them.

Republican operative Karl Rove can hold up his portable white board and scrawl on it all he wants, the public is done with him. Democrat operative James Carville can run savage attacks on individuals all he wants, he is irrelevant this time, which is the core reason these people hate Herman Cain and are so vehement in their desire to destroy him.

Rove was bashing Cain a couple of weeks ago for spending a lot time in Tennessee and far less time in New Hampshire prior to the 2012 primaries. Cain HAS to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire if he is going to go further in the primaries, Rove fumed.

Well, not really. Doing well there is about appearances, but it won't get you the nomination.

The GOP committees in these states jostle each other and try to outmaneuver each other over who gets to have the first primary or caucus, but in the end, they are all about appearances. Tennessee has as many delegates as Iowa and New Hampshire together, so why waste all that time and energy way out in front of the caucus or primary dates, when he can work much closer to home and pick up just as much support?

But the establishment elitists have always done it that way and if someone can do it another way successfully, it raises doubts about their omnipotence, doesn't it?

Also, Cain is leading the GOP race, but is way back in terms of money raised. He has earned his support through excellent debate performances and personal appearances, done in a bus tour, rather than skipping so much of the country by flying over it as the other candidates do.

Cain actually could benefit from some plane rides on occasion since bus rides are long and tedious and take a bigger physical toll than a couple hours in first class. But overall, his strategy is working very well, at a fraction of what the other candidates are spending.

And that really is the issue in Manhattan and D.C. These insider gurus make their bucks by lapping up the leftovers from the big media buys that all the other candidates believe they need to get their message across. Or by charging exorbitant fees for their services.

Cain is not spending big on media yet, and if he becomes the candidate these insiders are afraid they'll have to give up their cushy, bloated, self-important, egotistical lifestyles and work for a living.

They also are afraid that Cain will prove their mantra wrong – the one that says he who has the most money and spends the most money will be the winner. How many times have you heard these air heads regurgitating the same old theme, that money equates to donors and donors equate to votes?

Let me remind you of the US Senate race in Connecticut in 2010. Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, spent more than $50 million on her campaign to get elected senator, and lost miserably. How about Meg Whitman's $178.5 million spending spree to lose to Jerry Brown in the California governor's race?

The air heads talked all around those expensive failures, but they can't talk around Herman Cain holding onto first place while campaigning on a shoe string. And it worries them; you can tell that by their words and their deeds. Yet, even as the nation, including political junkies, has sickened of the attacks on Cain and is looking to move on, the media attacks continue.

Nonetheless, Cain, who has started a fund-raising drive to boost his presence in Iowa – he hopes to raise $999,000 by Wednesday – is already nearly two-thirds of the way there.

These are not the big bucks contributors either. A donor told me the other day that he sent Cain $10 because that is all he can afford in this economy. Yet he is outraged and sickened by what the media is attempting to do, and even though he was financially strapped, and has never given to a presidential campaign before, he sent ten bucks to Herman Cain.

It is obvious from this vantage point that the media is in the tank for anyone other than Cain. Nonetheless, Cain is holding on to his position, great numbers of GOP primary voters see through the media for what it is doing, and there is a growing backlash against the media, not Cain.

Bret Baier, who anchors the weeknight news broadcast on FOX at 6 p.m., noted late last week that the media has spent exponentially more time and done more stories on the unsubstantiated attacks on Cain than they did on the three of the biggest scandals of the scandal-ridden Clinton administration together.

But Cain is still standing, and the media has taken another black eye, as if that was necessary. Maybe the air heads should take a trip outside of Manhattan and DC and get a sense of how the rest of the country views them.

It should be an eye opener.

AP-FOX News Prove Cain's "Smear" Charge; Perry Jober as a Sudge?

2011-11-03T12:25:00.004-04:00

Can someone please tell me the anniversary dates when Monica Lewinsky was performing oral sex on President William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton in the Oval Office in the White House?

Anyone? No? Well, I'm not surprised. It's not on my calendar of memorable American events either. It was a disgraceful episode and it belongs as a foot-note in the history books.

But given that the United States of America has a centuries-long tradition of commemorating only positive events in our history, why is it that the American Terrorist Media spent an inordinate amount of time last week reporting on the "anniversary" of the disgraced Anita Hill's false claims of sexual harassment against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

Hill, an attorney, worked with Thomas when he served in the Department of Education in 1981 and 1982, and moved with him from1982 to 1990, when he was Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She aired her discredited claims during his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court in 1991.

Thomas overcame the reprehensible allegations put forth by Ms. Hill and was confirmed as a Supreme Court justice on October 23, 1991, a position he holds to this day.

Thomas, you may remember, is a black man, and a conservative black man to boot, which didn't sit well with America's pro-communist mainstream media then, and still doesn't today. Hence the 20-year "anniversary" retrospectives, not on his decades of Supreme Court decision making, and his reputation as a staunch conservative, but on the false claims of a disgraced accuser.

A veteran friend of mine, whose political leanings tend more to the Democrat side than the Republican, remarked to me as we watched one of those broadcasts last month, that "no woman who is really being harassed would stay on the job like she (Anita Hill) did."

Great point. I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but it makes sense. Hill could have walked away from her job with Thomas any time, but she didn't, and frankly I don't care what she testified to; her story didn’t hold up and Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice.

I bring this up because it was immediately after the media decided to dredge up the Hill allegations that it turned the full spotlight of its smear machine on Herman Cain, the current Republican front-runner for the nomination to oppose Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 presidential elections. Oh, he's also black and conservative.

First it was claims that two women had filed sexual harassment claims against him back in the 90s when he headed the National Restaurant Association. Those claims were said to have been very quietly – and cheaply – resolved with a payoff and a non-disclosure agreement. Neither of these women has come forth to be publicly questioned.

Frankly, Cain and his campaign manager did not handle the original disclosures very well, but getting lost in the media feeding frenzy is the clip of Cain directly addressing the issue by calling the claims lies. Most politicians handle similar issues by mincing their words and talking nonsense, and if they are Democrats the media then takes over their defense.

But that is if they are Democrats, and usually white Democrats. Black, conservative Republicans are in for it, and there doesn't even have to be a real person or any documentation to support the allegations. As a matter of fact, the frenzy against Cain can well be described by Justice Thomas's statement during his confirmation hearings:

This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

Substitute media for U.S. Senate and the statement stands the test of time. Take the current story that alleges a third woman is making claims of sexual harassment against Cain. It is being shopped around by Associated Press reporters Jack Gillum and Stephen Ohlemacher, who are making these allegations with no evidence whatsoever.

Their story is so lacking in substantiation that it would never have run in any news outlet in America three decades ago – well, maybe supermarket tabloids – even if the supervising editor was a child who was merely occupying that seat on a Take Your Child to Work Day. They wrote, and the rest of the American media dutifully passed on:

The latest allegations come from a woman who said in interviews with The Associated Press that Cain was aggressive and inappropriate with her, even extending a private invitation to his corporate apartment when she worked with him at the National Restaurant Association. The woman said Cain's behavior occurred at the same time two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against him while he was leading the association.

However, the alleged third accuser, let's call her the "Phantom Accuser" didn't file a complaint then, and doesn't want to be identified now according to the AP "reporters," which means they have become the source for their own story.

So, let's see their evidence. Cough it up. They didn't sign any non-disclosure claims so let's see the evidence. They apparently shared it with FOX News because FOX anchor Shepherd Smith started his 7 p.m. broadcast last night with the claim that "A third accuser has come forward."

That's patently false on its face, because no one has come forward, and I suspect it's patently false when you go deeper into his assertion, but maybe not. If the AP "journalists" shared their "evidence" with Smith, he certainly should share it with the FOX viewers, lest the entire cable network's news organization be held up to scrutiny for making false claims disguised as news stories.

Cain maintains that the entire issue is a "smear campaign" against him and the AP, with FOX News as a willing accomplice, is proving his point. Remember, it was less than two weeks ago on FOX News Sunday that host Chris Wallace and members of his "All-star panel" said they were working to help Texas Gov. Rick Perry – now floundering in the single digits in political polling – recover his previous position as the anointed front-runner, a position he achieved by virtue of the media saying so.

Cain's campaign manager said a Perry staffer who previously worked for Cain in an unsuccessful Senate run in Georgia and was aware of the issues with the National Restaurant Association, leaked the allegations to the Perry camp within days of being hired by Perry. Perry's camp denies that allegation and says it really was Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who is behind the matter, which Romney also denies.

Romney hasn't pointed the finger at anyone although Michelle Bachmann did attack Cain, apparently prejudging him – again without any evidence. Ron Paul, however, handled the issue like a gentleman, refused to pile on like some other GOP candidates and media lackeys, and for that he should get a couple more points in the polls.

Perry meanwhile, is dealing with the fallout from an appearance in New Hampshire in which he appeared to be under the influence of … something. Perry says he was just high on campaigning, and word slurring is something we should see more of, not less.

To that I can only say that he should take a close look at the way the media is treating Cain. Perry can be the next whipping boy without any warning even if he was jober as a sudge in New Hampshire and merely got his mords wixed.

Regarding Cain I think we should consider that the National Restaurant Association thought highly enough of him, his work ethic, and the results of his efforts to dump the people who made the accusations against him, and keep him on. That says something about the man and what he brings to this country that this country so desperately needs.

Oh, and just in case you HAVE to know, according to Wikipedia, Monica Lewinsky had sex with Bill Clinton nine times, two of which were in November – November 15, 1995, and again on November 17, 1995. Happy anniversary!

FOX News Sunday Panel Admits - The Fix is in for Romney-Perry

2011-10-23T10:31:00.005-04:00

I bet you thought that given Herman Cain's rise in the polls and his ability to connect with the American public and Republican straw poll delegates alike he would be a factor in the upcoming primary votes.

Well forget it. Cain is out. The Panel on Fox News Sunday today not only thinks so, they said they're working to make sure it happens. They want a continuing matchup between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. I guess in their world Newt Gingrich can go to hell too.

The panel was hosted by Chris Wallace and this week included Brit Hume; David Drucker from Roll Call; Kimberley Strassel from the Wall Street Journal; and Juan Williams.

Wallace said today that a "dirty little secret" of the news business is that they want other political candidates - except Cain - to stay in the race so they aren't just reporting on a Mitt Romney/Barack Obama matchup. But it seems far more likely that political insiders, including the media, don't want Cain shaking things up either.

Also, Cain has risen to the top on a shoe string, and doesn't have the money to make big advertising buys the way Romney and Perry do. Ad money; it's what makes the news world go round. Romney and Perry have it, and will spend it. Cain doesn't, at least yet, so he is out of here.

It has been clear from the time that Cain started his ascent that America's news organizations didn't want to take him seriously. His lack of insider political experience - which Americans love - was and is touted as a bad thing, and if he makes the slightest misstep it becomes an overnight sensation. Even now they refuse to give any credence to his message or his plans.

First, apparently because media personalities don't understand math or refuse to read what is plainly written on Cain's website and elsewhere on the Internet, it is commonplace to see them mischaracterize his 9-9-9 tax reform plan that is based on and leading to a national Fair Tax. Like a tree full of magpies they screech endlessly "It won't work, it can't pass, your taxes will increase."

It can work, it can get passed, and our taxes will go down. But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good mantra.

Yet, when the racist Texas Governor Rick Perry - remember his hunting camp named Ni**erhead? - comes out with a Flat Tax plan that is essentially the same as Cain's plan except Perry will bring along a massive bureaucracy that Cain wants to eliminate, the pundits gush over it. It will lead, they predict, to Perry's meteoric return from the ashes of a campaign that never got off the ground except in their minds.

I bet they think the Democrats will forget all about Ni**erhead and Perry falsely accusing Romney of hiring illegal aliens. Believe me, the Democrats won't forget.

Today's panel attacked Cain because of alleged conflicting statements on negotiating with terrorists and his stand on abortion.

Last week, when Israel traded 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for one Israeli soldier who had been held for five years, Cain was asked if as president he would consider releasing terrorists from the Guantanamo facility to get back an American prisoner.

Cain responded that he understood why the Israeli prime minister did what he did, and if faced with a similar situation would have to put all possibilities on the table. That immediately was seized upon as proof that Cain would negotiate with terrorists and thus weaken our oh-so-strong position on the world stage.

Let's look at this from the perspective of a parent whose son or daughter is being held by those pedophiles, rapists and religious fanatics. If it was your child, would you want to know that your president was doing everything in his or her power to bring that service member back home?

Even if the final answer was that the risk to the many outweighed the risk to the few, or the one, at least we would know that every possible avenue was explored.

Have these people forgotten what was done to journalist Daniel Pearl? When the Islamo-fascists were cutting his head off in slow motion on camera, did our leaders know that every possible method to secure his release had been explored? Did his family?

I think Cain accurately described the intricacies of the world today, and that an honest chief executive will have to at least consider all options.

On the abortion issue Cain was trying to thread the eye of a needle on his personal feelings versus the rights of women to determine their own destiny. Cain said he was against abortion, but that it still is the right of the family, especially the woman involved, to determine their own course action even if it is against the law, which the last time I looked, it was not.

Hume said Cain can not "walk back" his comments on abortion.

Here is where the Republican Party has been hurting itself for some time now. First, I oppose abortion when used as a form of birth control.

But I live in a state where the GOP at best can be described as moderate, and like the rest of the nation, females are an emerging force in our party. When I talk issues with many of the Republican women I know, I keep hearing the phrase "fiscal conservative," which appears to be code for "I don't necessarily agree with the party's stance on abortion."

A bit more discussion usually reveals that many Republican women also don't agree with using abortion as birth control, but they do believe a woman should have the right to make her own choice when rape or incest is involved.

I believe many men, such as Vice President Joe Biden, toss around the word "rape" because it doesn't make them as uncomfortable as actually describing what really happens to women who are raped. As a 20-year journalist I saw far too many rape reports that explain why that one word is insufficient to describe the actual crime.

Many reports, that my editors universally believed should not be in the papers to save the woman from reliving it, described vicious attacks where a man exacted a level of violence against a woman that can only be described as heinous. Smashing heads against concrete walls, or cinder blocks, or sidewalks, or granite curbing repeatedly until she was nearly unconscious from the pain and blood loss.

Punching her face so many times that her nose was broken, teeth knocked out, eyes swollen shut, even facial bones broken. Punches and kicks to the midsection that broke ribs, and damaged internal organs, obscene acts on her female organs that were followed by sexual assault.

Then, she not only finds out that the bastard who did this to her impregnated her, but some man she doesn't know, espousing beliefs with which she doesn't agree, tells her that if she doesn't carry the baby to term she is a murderer? Add incest to this, except it may not be that physically violent, and I think it is reasonable to ask why we are even having this discussion.

I don't know when a one-viewpoint-fits all position on abortion became a litmus test in the Republican Party, but I don't believe it is universally accepted, either by Independent voters, or even many in the GOP. And frankly, with the state of the economy, and the overwhelming need to get it back on track, I don't think it will be the defining issue in next year's election.

Cain may need to refine his message, or he may just have to stop trying to thread the needle. Either way he may find that more people agree with him than he had imagined.

I might have just shrugged my shoulders at today's FNS discussion if it weren't for a comment by Drucker after Juan Williams noted that Mitt Romney is running ads attacking Perry, who is way down in the polls, while ignoring Cain, who is leading the field.

Drucker said Romney doesn't need to attack Cain because Cain will trip himself up, and "people like us have been looking at his (Cain's) plan and writing all sorts of things, and it has taken care of the problem." The problem being that Romney has no idea how to combat Cain's popularity.

So he has the media doing it for him. Drucker added that as a result of people like those on the panel writing things about Cain "If there is any threat (to Romney's campaign) it is from Perry."

But wait, there's more. Wallace then added that "there is going to be an effort on his (Perry's) part, or our part, to resuscitate Rick Perry." Deeply disappointed in these people, I am.

I couldn't believe they said those things and I didn't hear anyone disagreeing with the possible exception of Williams who did stick up for Cain - a bit. In fact Strassel also chimed in noting "we're not the only ones that don't want a Romney-Obama campaign," and further explained that the White House would like to keep mixing things up too.

That's what the political arm of the administration is supposed to do. But if the national media is going be siding with the White House to keep Herman Cain out of the race, and Rick Perry in it, I think it would be nice if they just came out and said so, rather than attempting to package their agenda as news and commentary.

Journalistic ethics seem to be non-existent in that format. Credibility appears to be in short supply there too.

Wallace ended the panel discussion by saying that regardless of how things looked last week, "we'll see how the polls turn after this week."

Premonition? I think not.

The Thing About "isms" Is They Keep Coming Back!

2011-10-22T12:14:00.002-04:00

This film, made in 1948 may be outdated in technological terms, but it is right on the money regarding America Under Siege. Take 10 minutes and tell me if someone isn't trying to sell us a bottle of snake oil today - except the media is in on it too.

GOP Las Vegas Debate an Embarassment; CNN Finally Makes Fools of Candidates

2011-10-19T09:05:00.006-04:00

In the first CNN sponsored debate between Republican presidential hopefuls in early September, former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich had the good sense to sidestep moderator Wolf Blitzer's attempt to draw him into bashing the other candidates.

Most of those in the debate that night caught on to his strategy, and stuck to the job of unseating Barack Obama before he totally destroys the US. But as of last night's debate in Las Vegas, with CNN's Anderson Cooper moderating, it was apparent that most of the GOP candidates have an extremely short attention span.

What should have been an embarrassment of riches turned into an especially ugly, crass, classless embarrassment of embarrassments.

The debate started with some of the most uninformed comments imaginable regarding Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform plan, but ended up in a slug fest primarily between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. By the time they were done, and a couple others had joined the fray, at least half of the field looked decidedly unpresidential, and frankly, out of control. This included Romney, Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul.

In fact, at the end of the night, only Cain and Gingrich stayed above the backbiting and bitterness, although I was pretty disappointed with one part of Gingrich's comments. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who also was Barack Obama's ambassador to China, and is so far back in the polls it is difficult to understand why he claims he is a candidate, did not appear, which turned out to be good for him.

(However, Huntsman did appear on the FOX News channel's America's Newsroom Wednesday morning and went on a verbal assault against the other candidates, which frankly came across as cowardly since he didn't do it in a forum where they were able to defend themselves.)

Cooper, who unlike Blitzer, did all the moderating and questioning himself, presided over a loosely organized debate structure that obviously was intended to facilitate intense disagreements between the candidates. Failing to heed Gingrich's admonition from the September CNN sponsored debate, Romney and Perry fell upon each other, talking over each other and insulting each other, with Santorum and occasionally Bachmann willingly joining in.

At one point Romney reached out and put his hand on Perry's shoulder and for a second I expected to see Perry slap it away and nail Romney with a left hook. Seriously, it was that intense.

It was as disappointing a display of political roughhousing as I have ever seen, and Cooper just stood off to the side, obviously relishing his role in providing the Democratic Party with hours of soundbites to help out Obama next year. Frankly, if it wasn't for Cain and Gingrich I'd be saying that the overall performance last night made me ashamed to be a Republican.

Cain took shot after shot over his tax reform plan that calls for reducing the current tax on corporate earnings from 35 percent to 9 percent, the personal income tax that ranges from 15 percent to 35 percent, not counting Medicare and Social Security deductions, to 9 percent, and creating a 9 percent national sales tax. He parried them all, labelling the inaccuracies for what they are - knee jerk reactions and comparing apples to oranges - and called on Americans to review his program on his website and do their own calculations.

I share at least on thing with Cain - we both were math majors in college - but it is obvious that the rest of the GOP field has a brain drain in areas that stray from obfuscation and rhetoric.

One of the foundations of the opposition to Cain's plan is the claim that he is putting a federal sales tax on top of the state sales taxes. That is true on its surface, but usually left unsaid is that states that impose a sales tax do not reduce or eliminate other taxes that it is intended to replace.

Cain's plan will not only reduce existing federal taxes, but in the second phase will eliminate them altogether.

Also, we constantly hear the claim that half of American wage earners pay no income taxes, and thus would see an increase in their taxes under Cain's plan.

That isn't true. Under the present structure, all wage earners who receive a paycheck from an employer pay taxes; they are deducted before wage earners see even a dime for their efforts. But those on the low end of the income scale who have sufficient deductions, get refunds on April 15 of the next year, that often meet or exceed the amount of taxes they paid.

This doesn't mean they don't pay taxes. It means they make an interest free loan to the US government with every paycheck, and the government pays it back the next year. But the taxes are still deducted first. And the government uses that money without fee for periods ranging from a few weeks to more than a year.

Under Cain's plan that will cease. The tax rate on personal income will first drop to 9 percent then be abolished. But everyone will pay the federal sales tax which will expand the tax base nearly exponentially. The US workforce stands at 139 million and even if all of them paid a flat rate income tax it would still only account for less than one-half the population.

But if the total population - more than 300 million - pays a manageable sales tax on new purchases of goods and services, the tax paying base is more than doubled - not even counting tourists and others in the US who also would be paying sales tax on their purchases.

Do these candidates realize that when all the taxes and fees are counted in we currently pay about 60 cents on every dollar we earn and only 40 cents is left for us - at best? Or are they so married to the current system, like Bachmann, the tax lawyer, that they fear any change would cost them money?

Cain's detractors also are saying that prices won't drop when the myriad taxes and fees on business are eliminated. Ahh, crystal ball gazers. The way I see it, if any businesses in direct competition with others that offer their product - Coke and Pepsi, Ford and Chevy, Bud and Miller, UPS and FedEx for instance - are given the opportunity to undercut their competitors' prices, they are going to do it.

If you were number two on the list of competitors and could grab a bigger market share by offering the same product at a lower price wouldn't you? And if all these businesses were given the opportunity to sell the product for less, and none of them did, wouldn't they be opening themselves up for charges of collusion and unfair business practices?

The other inaccurate hit on Cain's plan is that it is a Value Added Tax, VAT, which is used in Europe to artificially inflate the price of goods and tax the public even more to subsidize their failed socialist policies. In that system, a product, take a loaf of bread for instance, is taxed when the wheat seed is sold to the farmer, again when the harvested wheat is sold to the miller, again when the refined flour is sold to the baker, and finally once again when the finished loaf is sold to the consumer.

However, as Cain has repeatedly noted, the Fair Tax on which his tax reform plan is based, is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed.

So calling the 9-9-9 tax reform plan a VAT is either deliberately misleading or monumentally stupid, neither of which are valued characteristics in a person who wants to be President of the United States, although we have that in the White House now.

As far as the issue with state sales taxes is concerned, Cain should make the point in his next debate that he is running for President of the United States not governor. If a state like Perry's Texas, which has an 8.25 percent sales tax, applied the same effort to reducing expenditures as it does to fleecing its citizens, maybe it could repeal its other taxes on goods and services and give its residents a break.

I found it very interesting that on the immigration issue Texas has seen a 60 percent increase in illegal immigrants while Florida and California have seen no increase at all.

And the cheap shot of the night also goes to Perry for falsely accusing Romney of hiring illegal aliens, not once but twice. As it turns out, Romney had a lawn mowing service that hired two illegal aliens; when Romney found out the owner of the business fired them, but then hired two more who had false work documents.

They were fired too. Cheap shot. Really cheap shot. More like a drunken sucker punch in a barroom brawl.

All in all the night was OK for Cain and Gingrich, but pretty bad for the rest of the candidates. The remainder of the field neither looked nor acted presidential, they have no plans of their own, and they have to lie or at least fabricate irrelevancies to find fault with Cain's tax reform plan.

If you watched you may haven noticed that the biggest applause of the night went to Cain when he told Cooper he wouldn't back down on his border fence positon to stem the flow of illegal aliens and other criminals, and when he refused to recant his criticism of the Occupy Wall Street sweaty, smelly hippies.

It is obvious that Republican voters want people who are strong leaders and don't change their minds as often as the wind changes direction. Judging from Tuesday night's performance, the number of people calling themselves GOP Presidential candidates who meet that criteria is dwindling fast.

Keep Religion Out of GOP Debates; Tell Michelle Bachmann to Shut Up!

2011-10-14T11:30:00.003-04:00

It's bad enough that some religious extremists are trying to divide Republican voters who are seeking a presidential candidate – with a minister for one Protestant denomination, who claims to be spreading the word of Jesus Christ in support of Rick Perry, calling Mormonism a cult.

But it was just as bad to hear what Michelle Bachmann had to say about Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform plan at the GOP debate in Dartmouth College this week.

Bachmann, apparently trying – unsuccessfully – to be glib said of the 9-9-9 plan, that when "turned upside down" meaning 6-6-6, "The devil is in the details." Oh, 666, the sign of the devil, I get it! Wow! What an unspeakably stupid comment!

I guess it was intended to turn Christian evangelists against Cain by making him appear to be doing the work of the devil. Does she think her fellow evangelists are that stupid? That was as big an insult to evangelist Christians as it was to Cain.

Bachmann's comment only proved to me that she be as small, mean and un-Christian as any other politician out there.

While Bachmann is showing that she only understands the current tax system and is unwilling to change it to make it fair to all Americans, Texas Gov. Rick Perry's wife Anita is running around the campaign trail inaccurately bashing Cain's plan while telling voters that Perry is being bashed for his faith.

What? It was his pastor who said Mormonism is a cult, and Perry won't repudiate that statement. These people are not good missionaries to spread the word of the Republican Party. And the ultimate GOP nominee will NOT get votes from independents or cross-over Democrats if this is where the debate is headed.

Bachmann's gaffe also was remarkable in that it came after she gave a really good response to a leftist question about American banks and corporations. But it was exactly in line with an equally obnoxious remark from former Utah governor and Obama Administration ambassador to China Jon Huntsman that he thought 9-9-9 stood for "the price of a pizza."

Which considering that the 9-9-9 plan is a precursor to the flat tax which Huntsman has bragged he used to bring Utah's finances under control makes him appear about as clueless as Bachmann. Both of these candidates tried to appear "cute," but neither pulled it off and considering the dire financial straits we are experiencing, their cavalier commentary is appallingly insensitive to the voters.

I don’t want a president who is glib, I want an president with a clear vision for the future of this country, and a plan showing how to get there. Bachmann, Huntsman and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum don't have one, but that didn’t stop them from trying to tear down the one workable, understandable plan that is being offered by a GOP candidate.

It also didn't escape my attention that when Cain directly confronted Mitt Romney, asking him to explain his 59-point recovery plan, Romney took the typical politician's road and said a whole bunch of words, none of which qualified as an answer.

Candidates and the media alike continually refer to Cain only as the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, or The Pizza Man, obviously attempting to minimize his qualifications and his expertise. Few commentators mention that he is a degreed mathematician who worked for the US Navy, a former executive for Pillsbury who bought Godfather's from that firm and made it profitable, or that he has a history of turning around unsuccessful businesses.

The latest rap on Cain is that he is just one of many candidates who have surged, and that the others, Bachmann and Perry for instance, have then dropped back. But there is a major point being overlooked – Bachmann, Perry and Romney all had national name recognition that initially gave them a boost, but when their candidacies were examined closely people changed their minds.

Cain was not known nationally and has had to work hard just to get name recognition. But as more people look closely at Cain, his numbers are going up. What does that tell you?

The comments from Huntsman and Bachmann were obviously meant to be condescending and demeaning, not just to Cain's tax reform proposal but to him personally. But I think both candidates hurt themselves far more than they hurt Cain, and frankly, considering that both are going nowhere but down in the polls it would be nice to see them both drop out and let us concentrate on people without baggage who can beat Barack Obama.

One candidate seeing steady improvement in the polls - to a lot of pundits' surprise - is Newt Gingrich who repeatedly demonstrates his knowledge of the Constitution and federal law in GOP debates. The media determined early in this race that Gingrich is ineligible to be president but again the voters are showing that they have their own minds.

Considering how the Democrats have treated the White House, both the physical building and the office of the presidency, going all the way back to John F. Kennedy, I don't think Gingrich's three marriages should necessarily disqualify him, especially since he is showing a commanding grasp of the issues and potential solutions. He gets along well with Cain too and has refrained from the character assassination the other candidates employ.

It is also remarkable that so many people are criticizing 9-9-9 but either have conflicts of interest or don't understand Cain's proposal.

For instance, the current tax code is more than 70,000 pages long, would stretch over 12 miles if the pages were laid down end to end, and it changes every year. Guess who profits from that system?

Michelle Bachmann and her husband, both of whom are federal tax lawyers as she repeatedly points out during her campaign speeches and debates, that's who. So I have to take her comments with a grain of salt.

Oh, and Rick Santorum. Did you see his reasoning as to why the 9-9-9 plan won't work? Well, he says it will never pass Congress. Really, that's it.

That kind of negative, wimpy approach to solving our nation's problems is exactly why voters across the political spectrum are looking for a real leader. Real leaders don’t tell us what we can't do, a leader sees possibilities, not insurmountable obstacles.

And lest we forget, Santorum, Bachmann, and Ron Paul all are or were part of the system that got us to this point in the first place. So continuing with their negativity and lack of creative solutions doesn't bode well for the future of our country.

Santorum even turned to the New Hampshire audience and asked for a show of hands on who would support a national sales tax, without adding that virtually all other taxes and fees would be abolished. Not surprisingly, people didn't go for it.

So, let's see. Using that methodology, how many people who are watching me write this column would vote for Rick Santorum?

No one! Sorry, Ricky, you're out too. Pack your bags and join Bachmann, Huntsman and Perry in the taxi.

Romney, Huntsman and Soros: The Devil's Triangle?

2011-10-13T12:47:00.004-04:00

I received an email from a veteran friend yesterday passing along a story that has been making the rounds on the Internet for some time now – at least a year - warning of a possible takeover of the American arms and ammunition industry by leftist billionaire George Soros, who supposedly would then shut it down.

I started researching the information in the email, found some of it to be factual – although I can't say whether its conclusions are accurate. But of far more importance was that my research led me to an apparent connection between Soros and GOP presidential contender and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney!

This as the Romney camp is doing everything it can to downplay reports that Romney staffers have had numerous contacts with the Barack Obama White House.

The email said that the Freedom Group, a company that has been in the firearms business since the early 1800s recently bought out ammunition manufacturer Barnes Bullets. Freedom Group is owned by Cerberus Capital Management L. P. which many people say is "controlled" by billionaire leftist George Soros.

That really is the big question here. Is Cerberus Capital Management "George Soros Controlled" as is claimed in many Internet posts? Soros does not appear on the board of directors or any list of corporate officers, yet he is repeatedly held up as controlling the firm.

I have not found anything that says Soros controls or has any other connection to Cerberus, but some notable Republicans do, including former Vice President Dan Quayle.

The email listed numerous firearms businesses that are owned by Freedom Group Inc., which again, is owned by Cerberus, and opined that Soros may be attempting to circumvent Americans' 2nd Amendment rights by controlling the market on American firearms and ammo. By ending all sales of civilian arms and ammunition he could the put a stranglehold on one of America's most basic rights - according to the email.

I’ll say up front that the Internet has a spotted record regarding sending out conspiracy theory emails so I always take them with a grain of salt until I do my own research. Often someone responds with a counter email that warns readers to check out the alleged implications with Snopes or Fact Check; except that both of those outlets turned out to be less than balanced themselves.

So I do my own work. What I found on this issue went far beyond what was in the original email. I learned that Freedom Group has indeed purchased Barnes Bullets and does own a significant portion of the American arms industry – which in itself raises the issue of whether a monopoly is being formed regardless of who owns or "controls" it.

On its website Freedom Group describes itself thus: About Freedom Group, Inc. Freedom Group is the world’s leading innovator, designer, manufacturer, and marketer of firearms, ammunition, and related products for the hunting, shooting sports, law enforcement, and military markets. As one of the largest manufacturers in the world of firearms and ammunition, we have some of the most globally recognized brands including Remington, Bushmaster, DPMS/Panther Arms, Marlin, Harrington & Richardson, Dakota Arms, L.C. Smith, Parker, EOTAC, and INTC.

But there is much more.

At the bottom of Freedom Group's website I found a drop-down menu that led to various company documents including one that said former Board of Directors member W. Grant Gregory resigned earlier this year in a streamlining process. Wondering who W. Grant Gregory is, I did a search for him and he popped up on the Notable Names Database as a member of Mitt Romney's team in his run for the presidency!

Here's the link. http://www.nndb.com/org/745/000167244/

I couldn't help but wonder why a guy who is on the board of directors of any group that is tied in any way to George Soros also is listed as a big-time supporter of a top-tier candidate for the GOP nomination to challenge the guy whose presidency many people believe was purchased by George Soros. IF being the operative word, regarding whether Soros actually has any control over Cerberus.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek profiled Gregory saying: Mr. W. Grant Gregory has been the Chairman of Gregory & Hoenemeyer, Inc. (merchant banking) since 1988. Mr. Gregory spent 24 years at Touche Ross & Co., a corporate processor of the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu international accounting firm, serving from 1982 to 1986 as its Chairman. While at Touche Ross, Mr. Gregory became an internationally- acclaimed authority on Tax Policy and Economic Development and participated in a number of M&A transactions and restructurings. He ... has been Vice Chairman of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. since 2005. In the mid-1980's, he served as a member of the U.S. Trade Representative's advisory committee on international trade in services. Mr. Gregory has been a Director of Verizon Business since August 2003. Mr. Gregory has been a Director of Doubleclick Inc. since its inception in January 1996 and Fuel-Tech, Inc. since August 2011. Mr. Gregory has been a Director of Ambac Financial Group Inc. since 1991 and Lead Independent Director since 2004. He serves as a Director of Junior Achievement, Inc. Mr. Gregory served as a Director of InaCom Corp. Mr. Gregory served as a Director of MCI Group since August 29, 2003. Mr. Gregory served as a Director of Worldcom Group (formerly WorldCom Inc.). Mr. Gregory graduated with distinction from the University of Nebraska in 1964, where he was later awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters, as well as the Builder Award, the University's highest non-academic recognition. Mr. Gregory completed Advanced Management studies at New York University and Harvard University's Graduate School of Business and attended the Air Force War College.

Vice Chair of Cerberus Group! The firm that George Soros allegedly "controls?" And a supporter of Mitt Romney too!

Did you see today that the White House came out criticizing Romney for being a flip-flopper? Which is incredibly suspicious since it was just revealed that Romney staffers have been having regular meetings at the Obama White House apparently to discuss national health care!

What's up with that? Sounds like damage control for Romney seeing as how people don't like his ties to Obama.

Considering what resulted from a fairly cursory Internet search on Freedom Group I also wondered who else is on the list of Romney supporters, which contains dozens of big money people – two of the most common descriptions on the list are "CEO" and "Billionaire" – so I spent some time going over the entire alphabetized list.

When I got to the "H" section I found none other than Jon Huntsman – former Obama Administration Ambassador to China and GOP presidential contender who is still in the race against Romney! What the hell is going on under the covers out there?

Now, I'll be the first to admit that these connections are tenuous at best. Maybe the "Soros-controlled" Cerberus organization is actually a bunch of conservative businessman and Soros really doesn't have any control over it. But maybe they still should be investigated for trying to create a monopoly.

And maybe Huntsman was a Romney supporter before he launched his own campaign and will go back to being a Romney supporter when he runs out of campaign money and still hasn't gotten out of the single digits in the polls. Also, it could very well be that Romney doesn’t know where his money is coming from, although that certainly would lead to questions about his control of his own campaign and of course his competence.

I am not claiming to have any answers to these questions, but the existence of a person who some say is a George Soros associate on a list of Mitt Romney's inner circle is troubling at best and the voters deserve an explanation. Maybe someone can explain what the connection supposedly is between Soros and Cerberus.

That at least would be a great place to start.

Global Warming, Plague, Union Brothers and Smelly Hippies Occupying Wall Street!

2011-10-10T11:30:00.005-04:00

Now that is one heck of a headline, but I promise to get all these things into this column and relate one to the other.

First on global warming, today, October 10, 2011 promises to be a beautiful fall day in the Northeast, with sunny skies and temperatures in the mid-80s – just as it was 64 years ago. How do I know that?

Because I was born 64 years ago on this day and I have heard the story from my mother at least 60 times since then that it was a beautiful fall day with temperatures in the 80s. My grandmother was outside of their farmhouse planting her fall bulbs in the mid-afternoon and my mother was relaxing in the sun talking with her when the first labor pain came.

She called my father who was working at the Army Arsenal in Watervliet, New York. He hurried home, they went to the hospital and at 5:30 p.m., voila, I arrived. So let's not spoil my day with a bunch of nonsense about how temperatures have escalated in a bunch of urban locations around the world, when they are just returning to where they were a generation ago as part of normal weather cycles.

Actually, the weather is helping the people who have spent the last three weeks milling around smartly in lower Manhattan attempting to "occupy" Wall Street. They should be happy as hell that the weather conditions this year have returned to where they were in the 1940s. First, they won't freeze overnight, and second if it isn’t raining they won't have to take showers by proxy.

I heard news reports over the weekend that New York City authorities are beginning to have a public health problem with these latter-day hippies involved in the protest to destroy capitalism (to replace it with anarchy?) since many of them don't believe in personal hygiene.

Their refusal to take showers or baths apparently is rooted in a combination of counter-culture claptrap – somehow they believe cleanliness is an unholy aspect of humanity - and a more recent claim that they are saving the Earth by not using water. The more immediate impact of this behavior is a completely unacceptable stench.

Several of my friends and I ran into this four years ago when we travelled to Washington, D.C. to show our support for Gen. David Petraeus and the troops who then were fighting in Iraq. We also were there to thwart threats to deface the Vietnam War Memorial and other monuments on the National Mall.

When the anti-military protesters marched from the White House to the Capitol where they staged a "die-in" we manned the barricades along their route of march to show that other Americans disagreed with them. The stench as thousands of unwashed bodies walked by was overwhelming – so bad that at first many people thought they had stepped in something on the sidewalk – until a DC police officer told us the real source.

But allow me to offer another view about bathing. Several hundred years ago people in Europe didn't believe in personal hygiene or public hygiene either. They rarely bathed, their sewage ran openly in the streets of their cities, and their garbage piled up high alongside their houses – which occasionally happens today when the sanitation workers go on strike.

As a result of their personal and public filth rats were a constant nuisance and rats carried vermin including fleas that themselves carried the germ that caused the Bubonic Plague, also known as the Black Death that killed tens of millions of people. Fleas not only infested the rats, they infested the people, bit them, infected them, and millions died.

Remember that line from the song, Broadway play and movie Hair? "Give a home to the fleas in my hair. A home for the fleas, a hive for the buzzing bees."

Nice rhyme scheme, but a really stupid idea if you don't want to host and spread myriad diseases.

Eventually the plague came under control – although there still are several deaths a year from plague in the US – and humanity realized that filth supports disease.

The Europeans began to clean up the sewage and garbage in their cities and took up personal hygiene. But not immediately, especially if you have read accounts from Native Americans whose first encounters with Europeans often included references to their stench and general uncleanliness.

Even though the connection between filth and disease was made, it was a long time before the direct connection between rats, fleas and the plague was proved scientifically. But now we have a sub-culture that wants to return to the good old days when millions of people died in agony as a direct result of being dirty.

To achieve this end they are blocking traffic and bridges in an unsuccessful effort to gain public sympathy for their goal of halting billions of daily financial transactions that take place electronically by people who can perform their jobs from any location with an Internet connection. And in the process they also are tearing up the traditional relationship between labor unions.

Just over a week ago the New York Police Department arrested more than 700 protesters who ignored the warnings to stop blocking the Brooklyn Bridge. They were transported to booking facilities in trucks; and now we hear that unions including the Transportation Workers and the Teamsters Union are supporting the protesters. Some reports say that unionized truck drivers have been ordered not to drive any trucks being used to transport protesters who have been arrested.

Can someone tell me why? I thought that when one union was involved in a labor action, the other unions, through their concept of brotherhood, were supposed to support them. Well, the anti-capitalist protesters aren't unionized; in fact if they had their way the Teamsters would quickly become extinct.

But the New York Police Department is unionized, so how do the union bosses justify defying their union brothers and sisters in the Police Department to support non-union layabouts, some of whom have told news reporters that they either quit their jobs to join the protest, or wouldn’t take a job if they were offered one?

It seems as if the behavior of union bosses in this charade is as contradictory as the actions and claims of the so-called protesters, most of whom can't even articulate why they are there or what they hope to accomplish.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg held a news conference a few days ago in which he was critical of the behavior of the protesters and decried their attempted occupation. Well, if he really wants to rid his city of this potential scourge he should listen to his public health authorities.

If you have hundreds or possibly thousands of people camping out on public property, wallowing in filth and debris, smelling up the area and creating a public health hazard, you have all the reason in the world to put an end to their nonsense. You don't want an outbreak of Bubonic or pneumonic plague in lower Manhattan do you? How about cholera or just the flu?

I'll tell you one thing: Rudy Giuliani would have put up with this for just about a heartbeat, and then he would have cleaned out lower Manhattan the same as he did when he forced the hookers out of Times Square.

I'll tell you another thing. People who think that being dirty is a social statement, and that smelling like an outhouse is attractive and a sign of intelligence very well could have a screw loose. Probably several.

Maybe the New York Health Department can work with the New York MENTAL health department on the next big round up and take a few hundred of the smelliest of the protesters on a three-day cruise to Bellevue. Is there such as thing as a stink-o-meter to determine who smells the worst?

One last thing: How about this for an anti-Occupy Wall Street theme song? Caution, offensive language.

Perry Can't Overcome Racial Slur; Christie, Take Heed, Stay Home

2011-10-03T12:07:00.008-04:00

Texas Gov. Rick Perry who only weeks ago was portrayed as the second coming of Ronald Reagan, if not Jesus Christ himself, has stepped into a deep pit of racial resentment that has the potential to derail his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

The Washington Post revealed in its Sunday edition that the name of the Perry family's hunting camp in a remote area of Texas is called N*****rhead, and has been for decades. The word was (is) written on a three foot by five foot rock in large block letters that were visible to anyone entering the camp - which over the years, according to the Post, included many members of the Texas political and financial establishment.

While the GOP establishment is attempting to close ranks behind Perry - in itself an unfortunate action - they also are pushing even harder for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to enter the race for the GOP nomination. Christie's backers apparently are acknowledging on one hand that they need another Messiah - or lackey, take your pick - even as they are attempting damage control for Perry.

I hope for our country, our party and Christie's health he stays home in New Jersey and gets some experience as governor.

The only dispute the Perry campaign has for the Post story thus far is the claim that the Perry family painted over the racial slur decades ago, while the Post says the word was visible as recently as last summer - and certainly for many of the years that Perry has been Governor and before that the Agriculture Commissioner.

Many in the GOP establishment are dismissive of the issue, including or perhaps especially Rush Limbaugh who reported Monday that the rock was painted and turned over literally as soon as the Perry family began using the camp in the 1970s - not the 1980s or 1990s as the Post reported. Limbaugh said the Post story is an insult to voters' intelligence.

But the Post reported that the stone was laid flat, not turned over, and that didn't happen until years after the Perry family began using the camp. The word was thus face up, still very visible and unpainted for years, the Post said, and even recent attempts to paint over it appeared half-hearted and the letters still were visible.

Frankly I don't give a damn about the Post version versus the Perry version versus the Limbaugh version. Even if the Post did use unnamed sources which is not uncommon for investigative stories, they all said the same thing. (When I was an investigative reporter and editor I was required to have at least three sources who could independently attest to the same information, and they had to be known to me and available to my editor if we were challenged.)

The Perry family's camp was named N*****head, as is the area where it is located and no real effort was made to hide that fact until Perry began to rise in political prominence. My issue here is why was the stone just laid down and/or painted over?

Why wasn't it broken up and trucked out of the area decades ago? Why is it still there? As a reminder of .... what?

Perry can talk himself blue in the face over this but he has a bad public relations problem and the longer it goes on the worse it gets. Yes I know that the entire liberal establishment allowed Barack Hussein Obama to get away with racial and religious slurs throughout his campaign, and that his former minister is a rabid anti-white, anti-Christian firebrand who enriched himself over his racial hatred.

But the liberal establishment has been getting away with this for decades and everyone knows it, even the liberals. Limbaugh also jumped on the bash-Herman-Cain- bandwagon Monday - Cain being the black GOP businessman who overtook Perry and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the recent straw poll of Florida GOP delegates and leaped upward in national polls to the top three candidates.

Cain was asked about the Perry family slur on FOX News Sunday and responded that it was insensitive. Limbaugh had himself in a fit over that Monday but frankly, what was Cain supposed to say? Do you think for an instant that if Perry or Romney or any of the other GOP presidential aspirants had information that Cain had used a racist slur that they wouldn't use it to derail his campaign?

Seriously, if you think this is about Cain, you may be right but for the wrong reasons. Cain's response to the Perry debacle was measured and reasonable, regardless of what Limbaugh thinks.

Voters have a right to know as much as possible about the people who want to lead - or in Obama's case, dictate to - this country. If it is revealed that a formerly pretty candidate turns out to have had a major makeover that didn't take, well it's a lot better to find out now than after he is elected.

Limbaugh's attack on Cain, aside from being a blatant diversion for Perry, was just one of many that have erupted since voters started realizing in growing numbers that they like Cain and they like his 9-9-9 tax overhaul plan.

(On FOX News this morning an economist said that Cain's 9 percent national sales tax proposal will hurt the poor! Seriously, this came out on Fox. Where was this guy when the government was deducting 25 dollars for every $100 I made for years not counting all the other taxes I pay?)

Cain also wants to reduce corporate taxes from 35 percent to 9 percent, and the federal income tax from its current minimum of 15 percent to a flat 9 percent. He says his tax plan levels the playing field for everyone, but I also think he should push the fact that his plan provides for discretionary spending at the individual level.

The economist I referred to above said that if a rich guy buys a $1 donut and pays 9 cents in tax, it impacts him less than a poor guy who buys a $1 donut and pays the same 9 cents.

Really? How?

If a poor guy doesn't have a buck to buy a lousy donut then don't buy the lousy donut. Work an extra 15 minutes at your minimum wage job, and then you can afford two donuts.

I have a different explanation of this. How about if a rich guy buys a new $100,000 car and pays $9,000 in taxes, while under Cain's plan a poor guy buys a $3,000 used car and pays nothing in sales taxes? They are taxed the same rate for new goods that they either need or can afford and I don't see a damn thing wrong with that; but used goods aren't taxed.

This is a consumption tax and it gives each of us the same right to buy or not to buy at our own discretion. There are reasons why some people shop at Bloomingdale's and others at WalMart and the first of those reasons is price. As long as the poor have access to affordable food, clothing, warmth and housing I don't see how Cain's plan hurts them more than the rich.

Actually, Cain's plan really does ensure that everyone pays their "fair share!" If you want more expensive stuff, get educated, work your way up in your chosen profession, be prudent, save and buy when you can afford it.

Regarding Gov. Christie, I have been listening to Limbaugh go on for several days now that Christie is not a real conservative. So why put him out there as another GOP loser to be bashed to smithereens by the media - who actually might wait until next year to do it if he gets the nomination? Then they can destroy him when he is running against Obama.

If Christie is less conservative than James Carville, how is that going to make the GOP field of potential nominees better? Right. It won't. So let's put that to rest before it gets started and the vicious liberal media exposes our embarrassing kowtowing to GOP power brokers in DC and Manhattan who want to maintain the status quo.

Frankly, I think the GOP establishment is scared to death of Cain because he has a plan and the expertise to employ it. Even if Michael Barone thinks he is a token candidate - a position he espoused on FOX Business last week and repeated in his Newsmax column today. (I'll be unsubscribing from Newsmax as soon as I post this.)

Yeah, Cain has some people shaking in their boots. Imagine that; A black Republican who knows what to do, a history of success in the business world, how to get this country back on track, and as a former president of a regional branch of the Federal Bank, probably knows where the skeletons are buried.

I think that really has some people worried. And that's a good thing.

Fox Business Brings Race into GOP Nomination Contest; Michael Barone Portrays Herman Cain as White Republicans' Token

2011-09-27T09:29:00.006-04:00

I have been wondering how long it was going to take for someone to raise the ugly specter of racial bias in the ongoing battle for the Republican presidential nomination to face Democrat Barack Obama next year.

The FOX Business Channel answered that question Monday afternoon on The Willis Report, in a segment where Washington insider Michael Barone was asked to comment on Herman Cain's rising star, especially his overwhelming victory in the Florida Straw Poll Saturday.

Cain, a highly successful black businessman, is the only candidate with a workable and explainable alternative to our failed tax code, and has had several solid performances in the GOP debates. On Saturday, after a another good showing in the Fox-Google debate Thursday night, Cain won the Florida Straw Poll with 37 percent of the vote, outpolling the next two finishers, Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney combined, with 8 points to spare!

Many Insider-the-Beltway pundits, obviously caught off guard by Cain's strong finish, immediately went to work trying to discredit his victory as a fluke. Many claimed that the vote wasn't FOR Cain but AGAINST the frontrunners, which doesn’t hold water since there were other candidates to choose from including Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann, all of whom could have been recipients of backlash votes too, but none of them even came close.

When asked to comment on the GOP field, which he has written off as incompetent and not worthy of his attention, Barone replied that the only reason Cain got such a boost on Saturday was because white conservative voters like a black man on their ticket for the same reason that white liberal voters supported Barack Obama.

Barone went on to say that having a minority person on the ticket, validating their political beliefs, makes such voters feel good about themselves, but otherwise, Cain has no chance of sustaining a serious campaign for the GOP nomination.

What a reprehensible, indefensible, bigoted, racist statement! So what does that make Cain; a token, our pet black man? What unspeakable arrogance, to claim to know what is in my heart and mind, not to mention the hearts and minds of the Florida delegates who voted for him.

Here's my opinion; Michael Barone came across like an inside-the-beltway pseudo-elitist wannabe hack, who sounded exactly like the kind of bigoted jerk that should go the way of the Dodo bird.

What bothered me nearly as much as Barone's obvious bias was that the show's hostess, Geri Willis, did not call Barone out on his comment, at least not right away. I don't know how the rest of the show went because I stopped watching immediately after that segment.

The Willis Report is officially on probation in my house.

Interestingly, two Fox commentators who were trying to undermine Cain earlier in the day bashed him for flubbing a question on the Palestinian Right of Return issue several months earlier on Fox News Sunday - which he did, but I noticed he went right out and educated himself on the issue – and because he supposedly doesn’t have "the right kind of experience" for the job of president.

Really? Here's a portion of his resume; what part disqualifies him to be president? Because he isn't a professional politician? That doesn't even qualify for an answer.

Cain graduated from Morehouse College with a degree in mathematics and a minor in chemistry in 1968, worked as a ballistics analyst for the Department of the Navy, and then completed a master's degree in computer science. He has not held public office, but did try a run for U.S. senator in Georgia in 2004 losing the Republican primary to Newt Gingrich's replacement.

As a businessman he has a record of successes including CEO of Godfather's Pizza, and was chairman of the National Restaurant Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Frankly, I see a man with enough varied experience to do very well as the President of the United States.

Similarly, as a white conservative Republican with a special interest in our nation's financial status and national security I am absolutely thrilled to see the Republican Party represented by people like Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana; Michelle Bachmann, U.S. Representative from Wisconsin; Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley, Governor of South Caroina, and like Jindal the child of parents born in India; and of course Sarah Palin.

Maybe a bunch of stodgy old white guys who have been inside the beltway contemplating their own navels too long don't see how a wide range of diverse backgrounds strengthens our party, but many Republican voters do, and we can only help they don't pay attention to people like Michael Barone.

Here's what should happen in the wake of Barone's bigoted commentary. First he should apologize to Herman Cain. Then he should apologize to the rest of the GOP field. Then he should apologize to the Republican voters of Florida, and then to the rest of the white conservative voters in America who are taking a close look at Herman Cain's background, his proposals for fixing the economy and his performance on the campaign trail.

Then FOX should show Barone the door. His type of nuanced bigotry has no place on the Fair and Balanced network.

National Media Doesn't Have a Lock on Presidential Nominations – And Doesn't Like It

2011-09-25T12:35:00.004-04:00

I watch Fox News Sunday nearly every week while I'm eating my Sunday breakfast. It's what I do, and often it gives me ideas for columns which I then write while I'm digesting.

Or sometimes, not digesting.

Today is one of those NOT days. From the opening interview with White House senior advisor David Plouffe who should be Barack Obama's poster boy for obfuscation and double talk, to the discussion panel in the second half of the show that all but ignored Herman Cain's dramatic straw poll win in Florida yesterday, I was constantly reminded that Washington, D.C., insiders are pretty much what's wrong with this country.

HERMAN CAIN

Why? Well let me answer a question by asking a question.

Who decided that once he got into the race for the GOP presidential nomination Texas Governor Rick Perry was automatically the only person who could challenge Mitt Romney? Who determined that he would be the automatic frontrunner?

The media that's who. The media fed us a bunch of gift wrapped and pretty looking polls that said who we should be focused on, but once you looked inside there was no background information on who was polled or what they were asked. Yet those polls said we should be swooning over Perry.

So Perry got into the race, Republican voters got a good look at him and his numbers did a nose dive. I didn't know squat about the man before he entered the presidential debates but I'll tell you something … I disagree with him on immigration, border defense and his decision to approve mandatory vaccinations for teenage girls in his state by executive order.

I seriously doubt I will vote for him if he still is around during the primaries next year.

Last time around I voted for Mitt Romney and I may or may not vote for Romney again, but that will depend on whether Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and a couple of others are still in the race. And this is what really aggravated me about Fox News Sunday this week.

After a stellar performance during Thursday night's GOP debate in Orlando, Florida, Herman Cain gave a rousing speech before the Florida Straw Poll and then trounced the GOP field winning 37 percent of the vote.

This was a remarkable accomplishment considering that while he has been an excellent debater and is the only GOP candidate with an understandable and working plan for completely revamping the US tax system, like many other candidates he gets nowhere near as much face time from the media as the "frontrunners." But on Fox News Sunday his stunning victory was defined instead as a backlash against Perry, a fluke, of no significance.

This, even though Fox News touted the Florida Straw Poll for days prior as the vote that had successfully chosen the GOP nominee going all the way back to 1979. But Saturday, it was just so much ... well, you get it.

Each debate in which Perry and Romney appeared they were given center stage and most of the time to answer questions. Even though there were as many as 9 candidates in the debate it often seemed that the media only cared about two … and candidates including former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said as much.

But all Perry and Romney have been doing is ignoring sage advice from candidate and former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich – not to give in to the media manipulation and bash each other to death – and instead have spent the last two debates bashing each other to death. So when we have other candidates who are focusing on the issues – and Cain had great answers to viewers' questions about small business and Obamacare – I think it is only natural that the voters are going to start paying attention to their answers and ignoring the alleged "front-runners."

NOTE TO PERRY AND ROMNEY CAMPAIGNS: I have not read either of your books, in hardcover or paperback, don't care to and won't after listening to you brag about them ad nauseum in the debates. I wouldn't pick them up if they were in the used books one-cent sale at my local library. Get off your books and let's hear what you plan to do for the country. OK?

Fox News Sunday panelist and conservative columnist William Kristol apparently wrote a scathing article after Thursday's debate – in which Perry stumbled repeatedly – with the one word headline YIKES! He obviously doesn't think the rest of the field is worth considering.

Kristol based his opinion on the opinions of other political operatives and campaign insiders, who told him "they want to get along with the possible nominee and the other candidates and their supporters. They don’t want to rock the boat too much." Maybe, just maybe, he should leave the beltway for places other than Manhattan, and talk to some real people for a change.

Out here in America, I see a lot of people who very much want to rock the boat. We're sick of the media telling us what the media thinks we need to hear and not one word more, we're sick of the same old crap from the same old politicians and we're sick of the media not doing its job.

How many commentators told their audiences last week that when Barack Obama stood underneath the I-71/I-74 bridge over the Ohio River from Kentucky to Cincinnati that the bridge doesn’t need repair but already is in the advanced planning stages for complete replacement that is scheduled to start in 2015? Outside of Neil Cavuto name me one. If you know of another I add the caveat they have to have said it in a voice louder than a whisper.

That bridge is obsolete, carrying double the traffic that was anticipated when it was designed in the 1950s and a massive replacement project that includes miles of rebuilt Interstate highways in both states was well in the works before Obama found out about it. Did you know that … other than reading it in the column I wrote about it last week? Ever wonder what else the media isn’t telling us?

I have a different point of view than Kristol about the debate and the straw poll. After hearing Herman Cain's comments on how to help businesses, Michelle Bachmann state the obvious about what constitutes the Fair Share the government should take from our earnings – nothing – to some excellent insights on foreign affairs and federal spending from Newt Gingrich, an admirable effort by Santorum to not be relegated to also-ran status by the media, Ron Paul's unique and accurate views on the Constitution, not to mention humor from Gary Johnson and international expertise from Jon Huntsman my one-word headline would be HOORAY.

Hooray for the GOP, hooray for the voters who are getting some real choices for a change, and hooray for the United States of America which in just over one year will have a real chance to bring ourselves back from the edge of ruin.

Yesterday in Florida a real poll was taken. And unlike the 1,000 or less people the media polls from anonymous sources, this one involved more than 2,600 people who identified themselves and spoke up. Herman Cain trounced the rest of the field because people are listening to him and liking what he has to say.

They don't make snide comments about whether his nine-nine-nine tax plan will work; they sit down and go over it the way he did and apparently they like what they see. He does after all have a degree in mathematics; how many political panelists can say that?

Are the DC pundits correct that his win was a backlash against Perry and Romney? Well, why didn't more people vote for the other candidates? Why was Ron Paul so far back in the pack? Or Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann?

I'll tell you one very real possibility. People voted for Herman Cain because they like Herman Cain.

So when we talk about polls, let's talk about real polls that involve real people who are asked one very simple question: As of today, who in the GOP field do you like the best to put up against Barack Hussein Obama in November, 2012?

Yesterday, very real people in Florida answered that question with an overwhelming vote for Herman Cain.

GOP Debate – Does Your Website Show Presidential Potential?

2011-09-22T12:23:00.001-04:00

I guess it finally had to come to this – judging presidential candidates by a somewhat less than objective analysis of their campaign websites.

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn’t seen it myself, but I did, last Sunday morning on Fox News Sunday. Host Chris Wallace was grilling GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain on his 9-9-9 Tax Plan and Cain was explaining in detail just how it would work and why it would invigorate business, leading to more jobs and recovery from the recession.

Cain also detailed how American workers would have far more control over their wages and expenditures under his plan.

Wallace responded to Cain's explanation by saying that he didn't see the information on Cain's website. Cain responded to Wallace by saying that's because it isn’t on his website.

Wallace asked Cain, "Why not?"

Cain responded that the information Wallace was asking about is not on his website because he doesn’t want it on his website. That seemed to give Wallace a bit of a pause, but frankly I found it to be refreshingly honest.

I have a website. You are probably reading this on my website. I pay for it, and I pay the webmaster who maintains it for me. It's mine; if I don’t want something on it you can bet that it won't be on it. As far as I'm concerned Cain was making a pure statement of ownership and Wallace was acting like an Obama Socialist who thinks the general public owns and controls every facet of our public and private lives regardless of who is paying the bill.

Overall, I'd have to say that Wallace was doing a pretty good job of pressing Cain on the specifics of his proposed tax program, and Cain was doing a pretty good job of answering Wallace's questions. I did get a bit of a chuckle when Wallace said that unnamed people at Fox News weren't sure that Cain's proposal adds up.

Cain responded by detailing exactly how he arrived at his program, what revenues it would bring to the government and the breaks it would give to both individuals and businesses. Cain then reminded, or perhaps informed, Wallace that he majored in mathematics in college before becoming a highly successful businessman.

So Wallace then challenged Cain on the identities of his economic advisers. Cain told Wallace the name of his chief economic adviser but Wallace wasn't satisfied, saying Cain has more than one and he wants to know who they are.

Cain responded by refusing to tell Wallace the names of his other economic advisers. Wallace asked why not, and Cain responded that he did not have permission to use their names in a public venue as being associated with his campaign.

Once again, Wallace seemed somewhat unsettled by that response.

And once again, I think Cain did what he should have done. I have no doubt of his business acumen, nor that he has people helping him formulate his plans for economic recovery and the future of America's tax structure.

I also have worked in politics long enough to know that most campaigns of substance have people supporting them out front and others who work behind the scenes. There is nothing nefarious about this; some people just want to help but are concerned that the candidate won't get the nomination and they don’t want to burn bridges with others who may get the nomination.

All in all, Cain has repeatedly shown that he knows his subject matter, he is willing to discuss it openly and in detail and he is not likely to back peddle on his positions. When he actually gets asked questions in the GOP debates he answers clearly, concisely and he makes sense. Often he gets enthusiastic applause from the audiences.

FOX News is hosting another debate tonight and has asked viewers to submit questions to the candidates. So I can't help but wonder if out in the wide world of American voters, someone asked Herman Cain if he has attached a detailed analysis of his economic recovery program on his website, and if not, why not.

I didn't submit a question but if I did I think that after watching Fox News Sunday last week the question that would have interested me the most is: "Do you think my website makes my thighs look big?"

Obama-Buffett Tax Travesty – Pied Pipers of Mediocrity!

2011-09-20T12:42:00.002-04:00

Dumbed-Down Fuzzy Math on the Buffett-Law-of-Shame Taxes Initiative and Creativity

At what point did the United States of America change its basic purpose from a land of opportunity to a land of sloth and indolence?

Obviously it happened, because on Monday, September 19, 2011, the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama teamed up with capitalist billionaire Warren Buffett, to levy a burdensome tax on anyone else who ever aspires to financial independence.

Aside from the news reports that Warren Buffett is in the middle of a billion-dollar tax dispute with the federal government and is lying to the public that enabled his excesses so as to limit his own exposure, it seems that control over the government is the underlying issue here. Allow me to elucidate.

Remember in the decades after the Vietnam War when the news media reported that children of refugees from the communist atrocities in Southeast Asia were doing exceptionally well in American schools? Remember how the Oriental kids were found to be excelling despite facing major language and cultural barriers?

That wasn't new. Successive waves of immigrants from all over the world, of every racial, ethnic and religious background on the face of the earth have done the same thing virtually from the founding of the New World colonies. America has long been seen from other viewpoints as a true land of opportunity, where nothing was guaranteed, but hard work, industriousness, native intelligence and a measure of creativity could reap rewards that were virtually unheard of elsewhere.

People who came to America from other lands and worked diligently to learn the language, become educated and apply what they had learned to creating opportunities for themselves were not genetically gifted people. They had seen what repression does to the human spirit in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America and had the initiative and fortitude to take a chance on their reasonably unhampered abilities to apply themselves to the fullest.

With each succeeding wave of immigration many observers grudgingly acknowledged that the successes of the immigrant children had as much to do with the work ethic of their parents as anything else. Until now that is.

Now we have the Obama-Buffett Law of Shame in which anyone who earns more than $200,000 annually or $250,000 for couples - which includes just about any small business with a half-dozen employees - will get slammed with a massive increase in their tax rates. When you cut past all the campaign speeches and political rhetoric what we find is that Obama, Buffett and people of their ilk want small businesses and people who are on the cusp of financial independence to pay for the wanton, recklessness spending by the federal government.

As long as these people, who have been steadily moving up the social and economic ladder as a result of their own efforts, are tasked with paying for the excesses of the federal and state governments, it is less likely that they will amass the resources to challenge the government and business manipulators now in control. So even though we know that what is going on in Washington is wrong, even the best equipped among us will be powerless to make substantive change because we'll be too busy just treading water.

It should seem obvious to even a casual observer that the real issue here is not Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid, which can be fixed with a reduction in American foreign aid to hostile countries and transitioning to a consumption tax instead of a productivity tax. No the real issue is the unwillingness of the Obama Administration to curb its voracious appetite for uncontrolled decadence exhibited not only by his wanton spending habits as president, but also by the administration representatives in Congress who refuse to consider serious spending reductions.

Creating another income stream, using the communist class warfare terminology "The Rich" as guinea pigs, not only absolves the administration and Buffett, hereinafter referred to as Obama's Lackey, of the responsibility to curb spending, it buys Obama time to conjure up another re-election strategy since the one he is using now is not working.

Obama claims this is not class warfare "it's math," but it's obvious when you run the real numbers that Obama either suffers from math anxiety as well as depression, he also must have attended one of those dumbed-down schools where the curriculum is geared to the slowest student in the class.

What is really amazing to me is that I spent a good portion of this morning listening to the Fox Business Channel starting with Stuart Varney's show, and aside from Charles Paine didn't hear a lot of people talking about how regressive and unfair the entire income tax system is from the outset.

America didn't have a permanent income tax until the Woodrow Wilson administration, although there was one to fund the Civil War – which kind of answers the "unfunded war" nonsense the Democrats have been bandying about lately as an excuse for Obama's lack of fiscal discipline. There were other taxes and levies in those years though, and America did pretty well as a country without taxing productivity.

The late 1800s saw repeated efforts to enact an income tax by various Socialist and Populist political parties, including the Democrats, who finally got their way in 1913. Note to my Connecticut conservative readers: hold your heads up high, fellow citizens, our state was one of three that flat out rejected the income tax amendment.

Oh, for the days of common sense and true social responsibility.

Despite all the rhetoric, just about every political commentator of every political stripe says this travesty won't get past Congress, primarily because the Republicans, as well as a lot of Democrats, in the House of Representatives are uniformly opposed to it.

But the Obama-Buffett Law of Shame has sparked a lot of discussion and frankly I'm disappointed in where the talk has gone. When Stuart Varney and other Fox Business anchors are discussing how much of an income tax is "fair" it is obvious that the progressives of previous centuries eventually were successful because smart people don't even consider that taxing their productivity is inherently unfair.

The proper amount is nothing. Not a cent. Not a fraction of a cent is a fair tax on productivity.

Why do you think the efforts to scrap the current tax code and enact a flat tax or national consumption tax are referred to as the Fair Tax? Because it is NOT fair to tax the hardest working, smartest and most productive members of society just because they are hard working, smart and productive.

Did you know that even after the Woodrow Wilson administration started making use of the windfall profits it received from the first income tax another three decades went by before the federal government started automatically withholding taxes from workers' pay?

Before that, taxpayers wrote periodic checks to the government to pay for their taxes, monthly, quarterly, annually, whatever. So, even though they were powerless to control how much the government taxed them, they still had power over if they paid or not, at least until Franklin Roosevelt used the military needs of World War II to enact payroll withholding.

Consider, and here I am referring to every person of every political persuasion who reads this column, how much power we would still have over the US government if we paid our taxes from our bank accounts instead of the federal government just grabbing what it wants first and then in its infinite benevolence, allowing us to keep the rest. Except the part the states take.

Now think about this. If the US scrapped the current regressive, anti-growth, counter-productive tax code and initiated a version of the Fair Tax, consumption tax, or national sales tax instead, who would have control over how much tax we pay? We would.

As in WE THE PEOPLE. Imagine that. If we controlled the amount of tax dollars available we'd have some input on spending too.

And that my fellow citizens is the real issue here. If we were to regain – note I said "regain" – control over our own tax expenditures we would regain a measure of control over the federal government.

Take away the government's ability to withhold taxes without responsibility for how those taxes are spent and you have citizen control over the government. If I remember my history correctly, I believe that is just what the founding fathers intended.

Obama's Bridge Too Far; Let's Hammer Harrison Ford!

2011-09-16T14:53:00.004-04:00

President Obama is campaigning against the Republicans in the US House of Representatives who may or may not pass portions of his most recent "jobs" bill, by going to GOP leaders' home districts and complaining about their deteriorating bridges.

According to Obama's latest campaign strategy the state of the country's roads and bridges is clearly the responsibility of House, which is controlled by the GOP. But what is really shown by this tactic is that neither Obama, nor his campaign staff – sorry, White House aides – understand the procedure for funding bridge repairs, nor who takes responsibility for them.

Or, they're just lying to the public. More on that in a minute.

Next on his list is the Brent Spence Bridge carrying Interstates 75 and 71 over the Ohio River between Kenton County, Kentucky and Cincinnati, Ohio. Obama is scheduled to go there on Sept. 22 to bash the GOP and blame them for the bridge's deficiencies – specifically House Speaker John Boehner whose district is nearby.

Like many bridges on the federal interstate system the Brent Spence Bridge was designed in the late 1950s and built in the early 1960s. Like so many others of its era, when the interstate highway system was completed it opened previously inaccessible areas in Kentucky to suburban sprawl, which generated flight from the cities and traffic.

The original capacity of the bridge, named for the late Democratic US Congressman who represented the district, was 80,000 vehicles per day. It now sees nearly double that amount and the daily traffic forecasts are upwards to an anticipated 180,000 vehicles per day by 2030.

The bridge is being portrayed by the White House as "functionally obsolete" which if you know what that means, isn't quite such a big deal, but if you don't it sounds dangerous, and the White House is using it as a poster bridge for creating a sense of urgency.

The truth about the Brent Spence Bridge is that it is already well into the system for replacement, a massive undertaking that requires the combined operations of the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, and the Federal Highway Administration.

The original bridge was opened in 1963 at a cost of $10 million and is now the second busiest Interstate Highway bridge in the country. But the new bridge will be designed for the anticipated excessive capacity and will cost about $500 million – think Solyndra in terms of where the administration could have made better uses of federal tax dollars.

According to the Ohio DOT's website construction is slated to begin in 2015.

Last week Obama went to Virginia and used the same tactic to bash the GOP Congressman from that area, going on about more than 90 bridges that if you believe his spiel are set to collapse at any minute dumping trillions of unsuspecting voters into gorges, chasms and rivers.

The problem for Obama is that not all bridges are created equally. There are federal bridges, state bridges and local bridges; all determined by which road crosses them. When he's talking about 90 bridges in one district it could range from something as big as the Delaware Memorial Bridge to a culvert over a small stream or ditch.

Generally speaking, local municipalities and towns take care of their bridges through local taxes and bonding initiatives, states maintain their bridges through state taxes, and also maintain the Interstate bridges through a federal formula that puts money into the pot.

The federal government gets the money to divvy up among the states partly from highway tolls plus our gas and road use taxes. But with that money comes regulations. There are maintenance plans and schedules, and for new construction there has to be a study, a plan, and a design phase.

Almost without exception, governmental agencies from the local to the national levels have an inspection, maintenance and planning schedule for every bridge for which they are responsible. But money sets the agenda and every single bridge is scheduled for repair or replacement based on priorities set by the people who inspect their bridges and how they compare to others in their district.

The Brent Spence Bridge project can’t even begin until the parties involved do all the planning and designing, which will include traffic, stresses, materials, drainage, anticipated growth, air quality, and hundreds of other issues. There has to be a noise reduction study, and a rerouting study for all the traffic that uses the bridge now. There even is a question of what to do with truck traffic.

So when the President of the United States of America throws out a blanket statement that a congressman is responsible for the state of a bridge or bridges in his or her district, he really is showing an amazing lack of understanding of the process or he is deliberately blowing smoke up the voters' panties.

And this is just one issue on his expansive agenda. Have you taken a close look at his efforts to eliminate taxes on corporate jets, or take away deductions for charity?

Guess who owns a corporate type jet and does lots of charity work? Hollywood actor Harrison Ford.

The AARP magazine in the August issue did a great article on Ford noting at one point that he undertook an intensive flight training program on both fixed wing and rotary aircraft when he was in his early 50s. He now owns 8 aircraft ranging from a Bell helicopter to a trans-Atlantic jet.

(When asked how he can own 8 aircraft and yet, as a longtime environmentalist, reduce his carbon footprint Ford replied that "I only fly one at a time." I like that response.)

Ford makes no apologies for loving to fly and using his aircraft to go on business trips as well as taking his families on vacations – thus avoiding public airports, paparazzi and giving his family a measure of privacy.

But Ford also has very quietly used his helicopter on rescue missions in the mountains of Wyoming where he has a home, and in 2010 used his jet to fly doctors and supplies to a remote area of Haiti after the earthquake there. He did not seek, nor receive publicity for his efforts there, any more than he did for his work with the local search and rescue force in Wyoming.

He is an Honorary Board Member of Wings of Hope which is billed as the world's oldest and largest volunteer, humanitarian, aviation-based charity. It is non-political, non-religious and doesn't take any tax dollars from the government.

Ford also is a staunch supporter of Israel which may not sit well with the current administration in the White House, even though he donated more than $30,000 to Barack Obama's campaign, mostly in the primary stage. He is a lifelong Democrat, but did donate $1,000 to John McCain's primary campaign in 1999.

So, are the policies of the Obama Administration going to hurt long-time supporters like Harrison Ford?

Obviously he deserves to get kicked in the teeth for playing roles as Compassionate Conservative government officials, including the President, and obviously he qualifies for tax breaks if he is incorporated – and why would a man reportedly worth $300 million not protect his life's earnings legally?

Ford isn't the only celebrity in this position; actors, entertainers, sports figures, and many others who make millions each year but rarely are defined as "The Rich" qualify for tax write offs on their travel and charitable work. Quite often I don't agree with their politics but that really isn't the issue here is it?

Aside from Warren Buffet who brags that his secretary pays more taxes than him, but falls short of restructuring her compensation so she wouldn't, I think these people have worked hard to get their rewards and deserve to keep as much of their earnings as possible. But are they now defined inside the White House as the "Useful Idiots" who will get screwed over by the very people they supported?

Sure looks like it from here.

Fight Terrorism! Go to the Fair!

2011-09-12T12:16:00.003-04:00

The United States of America observed the 10-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on us in myriad ways and in myriad places yesterday, and as far as I can tell no observances were interrupted by further attacks by Islamo-fascist fanatics.

New York City and Washington D.C., two of the targets in the original attacks were on high alert after federal officials said they received information from credible sources that the observances would be targeted ... but nothing happened. That could be due to the high level of security of course, but nothing happened in the rest of the country either.

Here in my little community the second week in September has marked Harvest Fair weekend for more than 40 years and it's a pretty big deal. On really good years the attendance at our fairgrounds has approached a quarter-million visitors over the course of 4 days, which is a lot of people to pack into a small place.

Other fairs ran in the waning weeks of August in this area, which is harvest time in New England, there are more coming in the next few weeks, and of course the big state fairs got a lot of attention from visiting politicians in the summer.

Starting Friday The Big E, which is shorthand for the Eastern States Exposition will open for its annual run, which goes until Oct. 2 this year in Springfield, Massachusetts. It too will see hundreds of thousands of visitors from across the northeast and beyond.

This is what we do in the Northeast, and Midwest and elsewhere at this time of year, and it is exactly what we should continue doing. I remember someone saying 10 years ago that the best way to defeat terrorism is to not let it force us into cowering in our homes like frightened weaklings, but instead we should go shopping, in other words, do the things we normally do.

My family attended the fair on two days this year, partly to get some fair food, partly because I was invited to sell books with the New England Horror Writers - books on war and elder abuse qualify as "horror" even if they are non-fiction - and partly because my youngest daughter entered one of her hand-painted gourds in the Arts and Crafts competition.

(She won a blue ribbon. Photo below. Please allow me a moment to be a proud father.)
My daughter, who is 17 now, started painting gourds like this one, titled Lilacs, about three years ago. She bought her first practice gourds from a farm in California then starting growing her own in our family garden out back.

Once the gourds are harvested they have to be cured outdoors over the winter and the following year they are cleaned and ready for painting. She has a great eye and a steady hand and has produced dozens of varying sizes on a range of themes.

This is part of our art requirement for her home schooled curriculum. Anyway, in addition to bragging a bit - my oldest daughter just graduated from nursing school so it's been a great couple of weeks for the Winter family - I just wanted to point out that even though most Americans aren't directly engaged in fighting terrorists, we as a country are doing our part to defeat them.

Or more to the point, at least we are doing our part to not let them defeat us.

I don't know whether the threats against Washington and New York were real or just something to get us unsettled, but the fact is, nothing happened. The ceremonies and remembrances were poignant, the people who were murdered a decade ago were properly honored, and life went on as it is intended.

We still have a long way to go in this war, and if you were reading this column several years ago when I first started writing it, you may recall that I said it would take at least 60 years to put an end to it. I broke that down into 20 years of direct combat, and 20 years to demonstrate to societies that would wage war on us that our methodology is better and to stamp out any remaining pockets of terrorism, and finally 20 years for a new generation to completely forget that terrorism in the name of religion actually was advocated and practiced.

Americans aren't used to grinding it out over the long haul, we like to fight our wars, defeat a discernible enemy and get back to business as usual. But war isn't like that any longer.

Virtually every military in the world knows it can't defeat us in a head-to-head confrontation so the enemies of freedom and democracy have changed to terrorism, attempting to wear the populace down by unceasing attacks on the weakest and most vulnerable targets.

Fortunately our military has taken the fight to the terrorists and for most of the past 10 years we have kept large scale attacks at bay, despite incident such as the Ft. Hood shooting and others. The last time I was updated, which was some time ago, I was told that our military had sent more than 50,000 potential terrorists to their version of paradise - and that's a good thing.

It doesn't mean the war is over, and I still maintain that we have at least two generations of struggle ahead of us. But we have been eminently successful to this point.

As long as we keep doing what Americans do, and long as our spirits stay high and our willpower stays strong we will prevail regardless of how long it takes. In the meantime, I recommend that you go out to a fair - ride the rides, try games of skill, admire the fruits of the harvest, the animals, the arts and crafts, the entertainment.

Defeat terrorism, have a good time!

Honor the Victims and Heroes of 9-11 - Remember the REAL Mistakes of the Past and Correct those of the Present!

2011-09-11T14:13:00.002-04:00

Could someone please define "unfunded war?" Does that mean we have slave labor producing equipment and ammunition and unpaid conscripts doing the fighting?

People who want to quit the fight against terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan for political leverage are using that phrase a lot and are setting the US up for more terror attacks in the future. Yet that phrase is an inaccurate piece of pure propaganda.

Was the Revolutionary War unfunded? Or any that followed, keeping our country secure and free? There is no such thing as an unfunded war in American history and if we didn't fight back after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – and continue that fight as long as terrorists exist – where would we be now, and where will we be in 2020?

I have been writing about war and politics in one venue or another for 30 years now, and I am seeing some very unsettling similarities between past actions that worked against democracy and freedom and those that are taking place now.

In the 1970s and 1980s the "Blame the Vietnam Veteran" game was all the rage. The media, working on behalf of the politicians they favored pushed hard on that cause when it was revealed that communist governments were slaughtering millions of Southeast Asians and no one could ignore the carnage.

So Vietnam vets – most of whom didn't even realize then that America had won every major battle in that war and pushed the communists right to the edge of surrender before Washington and the news media bailed out Hanoi – became the scapegoats.

From the very first word I typed about Vietnam my goal was to tell the truth of what I had seen and done, and to do everything in my power to right the wrongs that were being perpetrated on my fellow Vietnam veterans. When I wrote my first book, Masters of the Art, I didn't do it because I expected to get rich from it – and I didn't – I wrote it so there would be a truthful legacy for the Marines I served with and all others who fought in Vietnam to pass on to our children.

Now, here it is three decades later, we are engaged in the War on Terror and we again are dealing with a manipulative agenda-driven media, politicians who think nothing of using the war to further their careers, political meddling with the military, and total disregard for the troops.

We are fighting in two theaters with extremely hostile terrains where our enemies are using adjacent countries for support – Iran and Pakistan – while our troops are generally restricted from attacking those refuges – just like Laos and Cambodia in the Vietnam War. We also are fighting against ideological enemies who hide out in the indigenous populations, terrorizing the common people to gain their support, and using them for shields when our fighters get too close.

In the face of these political and tactical similarities we also have a government that is showing – perhaps deliberately – signs of weakness.

I have written that the first major mistake of the Vietnam War was President Richard Nixon's decision to announce troop withdrawals at exactly the time when we had the communist military leaders looking for an excuse to surrender after years of devastating losses. Nixon could have put an end to the war by showing strength and determination; instead he prolonged it and ultimately caused the betrayal of South Vietnam because he showed weakness and indecisiveness.

Today, President Barack Hussein Obama is following in Nixon's footsteps, overruling the advice of military commanders, withdrawing troops when they should be working to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and exhibiting a reckless disregard for their safety and effectiveness.

After Vietnam fell in 1975 the media and political lies about how that happened and why were stunning in their duplicity, inaccuracy and viciousness. Even when the American public began to realize – after the Iranian hostages came home on Jan. 20, 1981 – that the Vietnam vets were getting a raw deal, the media changed course only slightly and labeled us as "victims" of a lost-from-the-start policy, ravaged by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, walking time bombs.

Once again, the same strategy is being applied to today's vets. The war has been labeled "unwinnable" by modern politicians, much as the Vietnam War received the same label from the late CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite – who later was revealed to be a communist sympathizer, which in effect means he was a communist – after the Tet Offensive of 1968 in which American and allied forces were overwhelmingly victorious.

The current atmosphere of political meddling goes all the way back to the invasion of Iraq which not only proved successful, but was a natural and obvious extension of the Bush Doctrine. Then President George W. Bush promised that not only would the terrorists who participated in and supported the attacks of 9-11 be hunted down, but so would any country or regime that harbored them.

When the Taliban was routed in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, some of its highest leaders, including Abu Al-Zarqawi, one of Osama Bin Laden's most trusted advisers and a member of his inner circle who was wounded fighting US forces, fled to Iraq. There, with the support of Saddam Hussein, they began rebuilding the terrorist empire, starting with training camps in the Iraqi desert.

Virtually the entirety of the US Congress supported Bush when he sought Congressional approval to invade Iraq, and many of his later critics openly averred that Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and would not hesitate to use them against the US. But when those weapons were found to have been removed from Iraq, some even as Americans were invading, the same politicos immediately began a torrent of abuse against Bush and his policies that nearly resulted in the withdrawal of troops in failure.

But a basic truth of war fighting is that the weapons used by your opponent should not be the primary reason to fight. Bush apparently understood this, stood firm and deviated from Nixon's example, increasing the numbers of troops rather than withdrawing.

The troops showed that with the proper numbers and support they can and will prevail. They did and now Iraq is attempting to build itself as a democratic – but still threatened – country.

But politics is interfering again as Obama has suddenly and inexplicably defied the military commanders and escalated the planned draw down to a level that not only is unsustainable but probably increases the danger to our troops as well. He either doesn't realize, or more likely, doesn’t care that the troop withdrawal on his political timetable not only endangers the under-strength troops who remain, but nullifies the sacrifices of thousands of Americans and Iraqis who died to defeat terrorism in that theater.

In Afghanistan Obama is misusing some of our most highly trained special operations troops to meet his political objectives. This was shown in the August 6 loss of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter loaded with more than three-dozen troops, most of them American special operations forces who were employed in an operation that should have required regular infantry.

All across American today people are being asked to remember the attacks of a decade ago and the thousands of American citizens who died that day. But after nearly 10 years of war, which would make the War on Terror our SECOND longest war if you don't count the century of westward expansion and non-stop wars with indigenous Americans, we are on the cusp of throwing away all that has been won and sacrificed in their memories.

We literally can't wait until next year's election to stop this. President Obama seems to have accepted that he is most likely a one-term president despite the all-out efforts of pollsters to portray his support as strong and sustainable, and he also seems to be going all out to undo everything that was accomplished in the past decade.

Obama is thumbing his nose at our system of government, waging war without Congressional or public approval, appointing bureaucrats to circumvent our Constitution, placing our troops in danger, weakening us militarily, financially and economically.

It is time for the US Congress to stand up, speak out and open a bipartisan investigation into his actions. If we want to truly honor the memories of those who have died in the War on Terror it is time for America's political leaders to act like Americans.

President Obama Speaks, Market Tanks; A Glimpse of the Future GOP

2011-09-09T12:33:00.005-04:00

The Republican presidential contender debate Wednesday evening is over and the president's big speech on the economy that followed it Thursday night is over and two things are certain.

The market remained steady, even gaining a bit, after the GOP debate Wednesday, and it is tanking once again after our president outlined his latest and greatest plan for recovery on national television Thursday night.

All morning I have listened to various commentators, some of whom are trying to cut the president some slack by saying that he said some nice and hopeful things, while the more honest among them are saying his speech was just more empty promises and blame shifting. Regardless of your point of view on his speech, which frankly, wasn't all that good even from a technical standpoint, the market is dropping like a rock today.

Yes I know that Stuart Varney says today's market problems are a response to issues in Europe, particularly Greece, but still, it seems that every time Obama speaks the market tanks.

Essentially the president said he wants to put more people back to work on roads and bridges which is great if you are in the road or bridge business. He also wants to cut taxes for everybody except the highest level producers which seems great except he wants the people who actually work the hardest and create the most jobs to pay even more, so people who pay little or nothing can continue to pay little or nothing.

On top of his negative effect on America's business climate, he also wants Congress to make his proposal into law, he wants Congress to do it right now, and once again read it later. And ... he wants Congress to figure out a way to do it!

The issue here is that Congress is not tasked with doing the president's bidding, he is tasked with making his staff do his bidding. That's not disrespectful, it's just the way our government works.

If a Congressman or Senator has an epiphany he or she is required to tell their staff to get hopping on making sure it isn't just a pipe dream. If the president sees a light bulb go on over his head, he is similarly required to tell his staff to get it done.

But if Congress determines that the president's numbers are just so much pie in the sky promises with no solid accounting behind them and won't work, guess who gets blamed? The way the president delivered his speech last night it will suddenly become the fault of Congress that the plan he outlined isn't being enacted.

He is hoping that by this time next year the voters will forget what he asked for and he will be in a perfect position to blame the Republicans in Congress for his inability to deliver on anything. His administration is one of failed policies and grandiose statements but little in the way of real accomplishments so his real task is to confuse the issues, confuse the voters and try to look good while he's doing it.

After watching the GOP debate Wednesday night, despite the best efforts of the moderators to trip up the candidates or portray them in unflattering lights, it was glaringly obvious that what Newt Gingrich said was true ... every single person on that stage is better equipped to be president than the current occupant of the White House.

Speaking of the debate, if I was running any of the campaigns except Mitt Romney's or Rick Perry's I would scream bloody murder for a better position on the stage next time. NBC put Romney and Perry in center stage, next to each other, and did its best to make the entire debate all about them, with a little window dressing from each of the other candidates.

But Gingrich was wise to them and in one of the best comments of the night refused to answer a set-up question - one of many - and called out moderator Brian Williams for his blatant efforts to get the GOP contenders bashing each other.

There were some really good moments for some of the candidates who didn't get all the air time they would have liked, including Gingrich who continues to show he really does get it, and Herman Cain who again showed a rock solid grasp not only of economics but of politics too. If Cain can't get the nomination I hope he is seriously considered as the VP running mate or perhaps a cabinet position.

Ron Paul did not have a good night in my opinion, not did Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann or Jon Huntsman. Maybe in the next debate their positions on stage can be shuffled and they will be more visible and not trying to say everything all at once.

I think the best part of the night, after Herman Cain remarked that if God requires a 10 percent tithe then the United States government should be happy with 9 percent, was the audience's response when Williams tried to corner Perry, the Governor of Texas, on that state's death penalty.

The thrust of Williams' question was whether Perry loses any sleep at night worrying if the state has executed innocent people during his terms as governor. But Williams prefaced his comment by saying how many people that is, 234 death row inmates exactly, and the audience erupted with applause and a few cheers as he was speaking. That response was obviously discomforting to Williams.

I guess some of these ever so arrogant journalists really don't understand that lots of people disagree with them and don't really care what they think. I was really proud of Perry sticking to his guns on that subject too ... no pun intended.

All in all, I believe the two nights of politics showed that when the mainstream media gets involved in running the whole show - Republicans debating and Obama pontificating - the American people lose.

Nonetheless, over the course of the two nights we got a glimpse of what might be possible in the GOP debate, and we got a good review of current reality in the White House. I don't think NBC intended either outcome.

Drunk With (Presidential) Power?

2011-09-08T14:41:00.003-04:00

There is a lot of discussion on the news today over whether anyone will be watching President Barack Hussein Obama's speech on his "new" jobs program tonight, since it will only be late afternoon on the west coast and during the pre-game warmup slot for football fans on the east coast.

I think that in the interest of non-partisan involvement in government and learning all we can about the issues that will face us in the presidential election of 2012, I should put significant effort into convincing people to watch the speech.

So, at the urging of, and in conjunction with my son, we are debuting the Presidential Drunk With Power drinking game to be played during Obama's speech tonight and at any other appropriate time.

Note to persons with substance abuse issues: don't go any further if this will offend you. I mean you no harm, but life does go on.

Here's how you play. Get a case of beer, more if you have an opponent on scene with you. Get yourself a fifth of good whiskey if you like American spirits, or whisky if you like Scotch or Canadian brands. You can substitute here with vodka, rum, tequila or similar distillations, but no liqueurs.

Place the booze within arms reach in the room where your television or radio is located. Keep the beer iced, get shot glasses for the liquor.

Turn on the television or radio at the appointed hour depending on the time zone where you live.

These are the rules:

Every time that President Obama says the word "infrastructure" you drink a shot, and a gulp of beer.

When he says "investment" your opponent takes a shot and a beer. (If you can't do this in person get an Internet buddy and use your videocam to keep an eye on each other.)

Every time Obama blames the process - as in "Congress must" or "the political parties must" - take another shot and finish the beer.

When Obama blames someone else for the current state of affairs, your opponent takes a shot and finishes his or her beer.

If Obama says he "inherited" this mess, take a double shot and chase it with a full beer.

If Obama claims some form of administrative victory, regardless of how small or picayune, your opponent takes a double shot and a full beer as a chaser.

When Obama says "Clean, renewable or green" both of you take a double shot and shotgun another beer.

Every time Obama changes his gaze from the right teleprompter to the left or vice versa, attempting to look presidential and convey a sense of urgency, as if he suddenly realized his job is at stake, take several gulps of beer and shake your head in amazement.

Keep this up for as long as he speaks or you can understand what he is saying. The last one standing and still coherent wins, if that is possible.

Oh, one last rule. If Obama says directly, or intimates, that "This is Bush's fault" you both must take four shots in a row followed immediately by two beers. This is different than, and probably an expansion of, the rule on the word inherit.

So that's it. Better than just about anything else you might be doing tonight and it will make all the political posturing palatable. Good luck.

p.s. Don't drive after playing this game, and expect to wake up tomorrow feeling terrible and wondering what just happened. Pretty much the way America has been feeling for nearly three years now.

What Do Barack Obama and Rick Perry Have in Common? They Both Snubbed the VFW!

2011-08-25T11:44:00.006-04:00

Have you noticed how people in government have been crying for civility and bipartisanship recently, simultaneously shedding crocodile tears while bashing the daylights out of each other?

Well, we finally have achieved true bipartisanship, albeit on the backs of America's combat veterans.

Both Democratic President Barack Hussein Obama, the commander in chief of America's armed forces, and Republican Governor of Texas, Rick Perry have snubbed the Veterans of Foreign Wars! Both received the traditional invitation to attend the national convention, to be held in San Antonio, Texas this year from August 27 - September 1, 2011.

In Obama's case he not only is refusing to attend the convention, he also will not send an appropriate substitute from his administration to stand in for him!

Perry, as the GOP frontrunner for the nomination to face Obama next year, meaning he too wants to be commander in chief, and as the governor of the host state, not only snubbed the VFW's invitation to attend the convention, he initially didn't even bother to respond.

To Perry's credit when the National Commander of the VFW issued a press release publicizing their behavior, he recanted and "adjusted his schedule," so he now will make an appearance.

Good for him. I'm sure it will simple to explain his behavior at his next campaign appearance.

The invitations to the White House and governors of states that host the annual convention are not idle social or politically inspired gestures. They have a very real purpose to the veterans' community, as shown by the official VFW statement on the issue.

"The VFW has had a long-standing tradition of inviting the sitting president to address our convention. We want to know where he stands on veterans' affairs, and we want those remarks made in public and on the record," said Richard L. Eubank, the national commander of the nearly 2 million-member organization.

"When the President is unable to attend, it has always been customary for the White House to choose a high-level administration official as an alternative speaker," Eubank continued.

"It is an insult of the highest magnitude that for the first time in the history of the VFW, the White House has apparently decided that this great and iconic organization of combat veterans and all of its members are not worthy of its notice by not at least offering a first-tier speaker from the administration."

Eubank is a Marine Corps retiree and Vietnam combat veteran from Eugene, Oregon. I would imagine that with proposals being aired in Washington to help reduce spending by cutting veterans' pensions, the questions and answers this year would be of special interest. They also might want to discuss Afghanistan, troop withdrawals that fly in the face of advice from military commanders, misuse of special operations forces resulting in more than 30 deaths earlier this month, and similar matters.

Less than 1 percent of all Americans are serving in the Armed Forces, including all reserve and National Guard Troops. Overall only about 7 percent of Americans have EVER served in the Armed Forces meaning 93 percent of the people in this country owe their freedoms and liberties to this incredibly small band of citizens.

President Obama Salutes America's Combat Veterans

Further, even within the 1 percent and the 7 percent, far smaller percentages have actually served in combat. All who serve deserve our thanks and respect, and I will always hold a special place in my heart for those who have faced the bombs and bullets.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the VFW, have been since 1985, and still hold an office within my local post where I also am a Past Commander. I have not held state or national offices in the VFW.

The VFW is the largest organization of America's combat veterans, and the behavior by both of these individuals is atrocious. I'm sure I can find plenty of speeches by both of them where they swear they support the troops.

Regarding Perry's initial lack of reaction, Eubank said, "The VFW also has a tradition of inviting the governor of the host state where its annual
convention is being held to come and welcome and greet our convention delegates. Although Governor Perry was similarly sent an invitation 3 months ago, apparently our invitation was deemed not important enough for the governor's office to at least accept or decline the invitation.

"Governor Perry's candidacy for president does not provide him an excuse for bad manners. The White House and Governor Perry can rest assured that the 2 million members of the VFW and its Auxiliaries will remember this discourteous treatment for a very long time to come."

Frankly, Perry's campaign communications director should strongly recommend that his first words to the men and women at the convention be "I am very sorry for the inadvertent confusion over my attendance. I was so busy saying my prayers and campaigning for president that your invitation was momentarily set aside. That situation has been rectified and I am happy and proud to be here."

When Perry realized the magnitude of the gaffe he had made he contacted the VFW and said he would be very happy to address the convention. Thus, Eubank issued the following statement: "I am pleased to learn that Texas Governor Rick Perry has been able to adjust his schedule and will be attending the 112th VFW National Convention next week in San Antonio. We are appreciative that the governor will be available to welcome and greet VFW Convention delegates to the Lone Star State on Monday, August 29th at 8:35 a.m. And, we likewise look forward to welcoming him to our annual convention."

The VFW's National Convention hosts a number of other speakers as well, including prominent members of the cabinet, military and civic leaders, business leaders and everyday people honored for their exemplary service.

How much do you want to bet that next year, with the convention being held only months before the Presidential Election, that Obama himself will find plenty of room on his schedule to attend, speak, do the grab and grin for photo ops, and make sweeping pronouncements about the greatness of America's veterans? I bet he'll go to the American Legion convention as well.

Any takers? No? I'm not surprised.

Were Our Special Ops Forces "Wasted" for Political Expediency?

2011-08-17T16:04:00.008-04:00

Wasted. It's one hell of a word.

In Vietnam it was used as a verb, a synonym for kill, as in "We wasted a whole company of NVA on that operation."

Back in the USA, especially on college campuses, wasted meant being high, stoned, due to the use of various mind altering substances.

Webster's defines waste as: to damage or destroy; emaciate; enfeeble; or "to squander."

It's the last definition that applies here, in regards to the destruction of a US Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter on August 6 in Afghanistan that took the lives of 30 Americans, 8 Afghan troops and one dog. Aside from three helicopter crew members – the pilot, co-pilot and gunner – all the rest of the Americans were Special Operations forces, many from the US Navy's SEAL Team 6, but also including Army and Air Force special operations troops.

After a week of speculation on why so many high ranking, specially trained troops were on one helicopter, especially so many from the same team, how their helicopter was downed and what they were doing there, one theory is taking precedence.

The Special Operations forces were on that helicopter doing that job because the regular infantry troops who normally would have been used on an operation of that nature were pulled out of their combat roles to satisfy the politically motivated timetable for troop withdrawals promised by President Barack Obama.

In fact, until late this spring a US Army infantry unit was based within a mile of where the Chinook was hit and would have been responsible for security operations in that area. But they were withdrawn, apparently in anticipation of Obama's order to begin troop reductions in direct opposition to the advice of his senior commanders.

From the instant that the public learned of the Chinook crash, people with knowledge of the normal tactics and operating procedures of Special Operations forces began questioning why so many were on one aircraft, and the nature of their mission.

The Pentagon first said the troops were a Quick Reaction Force on the way to help out a US Ranger team that was on a nighttime raid to kill or capture a local Taliban leader. According to CNN the Rangers were under heavy fire from Taliban insurgents and in dire need of support.

But that raised the question of why there were no gunships – helicopters or C-130s – on station. Then it was revealed that the Rangers secured the crash site with no casualties, instantly calling into question the claim that the Chinook was on a rescue mission.

That claim also led to the question of why a Special Operations force – at that time the Pentagon had not yet released the identities of all those killed on the aircraft and most reports indicated that all the passengers were members of SEAL Team 6 – would be used as a reaction force for another special operations unit, a job that again would normally would be handled by regular infantry troops.

The fact that so many members of SEAL Team 6, the unit that killed Osama Bin Laden, were aboard instantly prompted questions of whether they were ambushed and killed in retaliation for his death. That theory required that someone with inside knowledge of the team's activities and whereabouts would have alerted the Taliban to its presence – a possibility, but also one that requires a high level traitor somewhere along the line.

It seems unlikely but that theory persists in some circles.

Later in the week the Pentagon revised its explanation and said the Ranger unit was on a mission to kill or capture a local Taliban leader – a valid mission for the Rangers who themselves are special operations troops. But military officials said some Taliban were escaping and the troops on the Chinook were called in to provide a blocking force.

But again, that merely reiterated the question of why conventional infantry were not used, and again, why so many Special Operations Forces were on one aircraft. Standard Operating Procedures called for such teams to be split up on several aircraft so the loss of one would not mean the loss of all team members.

It wasn't until after the remains of the dead were returned to Dover Air Force Base on Wednesday August 10, and President Obama made a highly publicized and ultimately controversial visit to the base, that information was released on the true makeup of the occupants of the Chinook.

Shadow President Barack Hussein Obama

Obama banned all media from Dover when the remains were returned and said he was banning all photos of the coffins at the request of families. But personnel on the base during the president's visit said he also wanted to be sure there were no pictures that showed him and the coffins together.

Obama did bring the White House photographer to the base, without the knowledge of Pentagon officials. Obama and a few of his entourage had an "artsy" picture taken, with him in silhouette saluting – something off in the distance.

On Friday FOX News finally was able to report the names, services and military occupations of all the deceased, and also showed video footage of the crash scene, with graphics indicating that the Chinook came down in the midst of a Taliban ambush and was hit in midair by numerous forms of weaponry. Sources in military intelligence say the Chinook was hit by at least three RPGs in addition to automatic weapons fire.

The FOX report revealed the true extent of the forces on the Chinook, a combat air controller, pararescue specialists, high altitude - low opening (HALO) parachutists, divers, a cryptologist, explosive ordnance disposal technicians assigned to the SEAL team, and one dog. The force consisted of SEALs and other Navy special operations personnel, in addition to both Air Force and Army special operations troops.

By Special Operations standards a 30-man, multi-service force is huge, and normally would be on a mission that could have included capture or killing of extremely high level targets, hardly the task assigned them on Aug. 6.

The regular army unit that had been stationed near the crash site could have assisted the Rangers without the need for outside forces. In fact, had the regular Army troops still been in the area it is questionable whether the operation would even have been necessary.

The use of Special Operations troops to do the job normally tasked to regular infantry unfortunately is not unusual for the Afghanistan Theater in the War on Terror. Until recently, with the exception of the initial invasion in 2001, Afghanistan has been treated like an unimportant backwater in the war – even though the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were unleashed from there.

Even after the major successes of American and allied troops aligned with the anti-Taliban forces in 2001, the terrorist Taliban and Al Qaeda forces have persisted, never really disappearing. When American commanders turned their attention to Iraq and pursued fleeing Al Qaeda fighters there, Afghanistan operations became the responsibility of NATO forces, and success seemed to become a dirty word, with the terrorist forces rebuilding their ranks and taking over huge swaths of the country virtually unimpeded.

After the American victory in Iraq, American commanders and politicians again focused on Afghanistan where the situation had deteriorated terribly. An increase in American fighters there was approved by Obama but he also announced that there would be a withdrawal date, determined by Obama's promises to his political base, not conditions on the ground.

Obama also said when he announced his troop withdrawal policy that he was going to turn much of the work being done by conventional infantry in Afghanistan over to Special Operations Forces, a comment that led many analysts to envision small teams doing covert work that would result in strikes on the Taliban by drones, conventional aircraft or artillery.

Now it is obvious that Obama's comments meant he would replace the line infantry units with the highly trained special operations troops, who not only have many more years invested in specialized training, but often are much higher in rank than the typical fighter in an infantry company. Thus a review of the ranks and specialties among the Special Operations fighters lost on August 6 shows that they had accumulated more than a century of experience – and will be very difficult to replace.

Yet the Obama Administration continues to bumble along ignoring the criticism of his Dover "photo op" as he focuses on a three-day campaign bus tour paid for by taxpayers. Next, he's taking his family to Martha's Vineyard for a week's vacation.

FOX News reported that at least three investigations have been launched to determine what happened on that dark Afghan night. In my circles, the Obama Administration is so universally distrusted that the word "whitewash" is heard frequently. In fact, this week the Washington Times published a story in which an unnamed "Commando" placed the blame for the August 6 incident squarely on the shoulders of the local commanders.

Maybe so, but they were taking orders from much higher up the chain of command and the guys on the bottom should not have to take the blame for the guys on the top.

We may have to wait a long time to determine how these investigations turn out, but one thing is certain right now. Barack Hussein Obama is the commander in chief, and it was his order to reconfigure the troops in Afghanistan, regardless of whether or not he had direct knowledge of circumstances that led to the death of so many troops.

As such, to quote one of his predecessors, the buck stops with him. These deaths, and all others in the War on Terror from Inauguration Day 2009 onward, are directly tied to him, and we can only hope the American voting public remembers the events of August, 2011 in November, 2012.

Meanwhile, across America, families, friends and colleagues are mourning the deaths of the Special Forces personnel and all others who have died defending this country, while their commander in chief shows once again that he is not fit to lead.

Ames Straw Poll Springs Surprises; Now Back to Reality

2011-08-14T10:15:00.003-04:00

Minnesota had a .500 day in Ames, Iowa yesterday, with US Rep. Michelle Bachmann winning the straw poll, and that state's former Governor Tim Pawlenty coming in third, and ultimately dropping out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Right on Bachmann's heals was Rep. Ron Paul, coming in second only 152 votes behind Bachmann, which I find troubling and hope doesn't indicate that he'll be a front runner going into next year's caucuses and primaries. I'll explain in a minute.

Pennsylvania's former Sen. Rick Santorum made a great showing, coming in fourth, which had him walking on clouds since he had made a big deal of being ignored by the national media and was considered to be way back in the pack. At least the GOP voters in Ames were listening to his message.

Similarly, right behind him in a shocking fifth place showing - for the media - was former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain, who no one is talking about today.

Herman Cain

But Cain is changing the face of the GOP presidential race, with a message directly from the business world where he has been an overwhelming success. Cain is showing the independent and disenchanted Democratic voters that not only do we have a diverse field of viable candidates, but that we are on the same page to a great degree with our opposition to the failed administration of the vacationing Barack Hussein Obama.

Now, just to get our bearings, we should take a second to review why the third-place finisher is dropping out of the race, while the fourth- and fifth-place finishers are celebrating. In a word - Expectations.

Gov. Pawlenty put a lot of time, money and personal appearances into the Ames Straw Poll, which in itself may not have been a really good move. Considering the amount of effort he put into Iowa, Pawlenty was expected to beat Michelle Bachmann. He didn't come close.

Now Pawlenty can't go back to his financial backers and show that people are listening to, and more important, responding to his message. He can't expect to raise much more money and that puts his candidacy to an end. In retrospect, did he really expect to do better than Michelle Bachmann who was born and raised in Iowa, and whose family counts among that state's earliest settlers?

Santorum and Cain, however, were not expected to place anywhere near the top and since both did they can both claim momentum, which can keep them going at least through January when the caucuses begin. Santorum and Cain both did well in the GOP debate last Thursday, both have a clear and convincing message and both can be formidable opponents for the so-called "top-tier" candidates.

Cain has made a point on numerous occasions that he still is working on building national name recognition and thus has a distinct disadvantage when compared to the rest of the field, all of whom have been in the political area for years. That his message is taking hold was evident, however, when Cain spoke to the Straw Poll attendees Saturday afternoon.

Cain promised that he would never remove the phrase "endowed by our creator" from the Declaration of Independence - as Barack Obama did in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute on Sept. 18, 2010. When Cain made that point the applause and cheers were overwhelming.

So, while Cain polled fifth overall, he still out-polled such GOP heavyweights as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; Texas Gov. Rick Perry who announced his candidacy at a stop in South Carolina about midway through the Straw Poll voting and received nearly 800 write-in votes; former Massachusetts Governor and acknowledged national front-runner Mitt Romney, and others.

That means people were listening to his message and responding to it. That means Cain will likely be in the race at least through the early caucus votes and that means GOP voters nationally will be seeing and hearing from a broad range of backgrounds and will have some real choices when the binding votes are cast.

As for Ron Paul, who nearly toppled Bachmann in her own home state, due I believe to a well established and fiercely loyal following that has been with him for years, he showed once again in his Saturday speech that he should not be president of the United States. He did this by saying one moment that he is a proponent of free trade, and the next that we should withdraw all US troops from all overseas posts and bring them back inside the US borders.

Besides coming across as rabidly isolationist, Mr. Paul claims to be the opposite of Obama, yet his foreign relations positions show him to more of a mirror image of the current president.

Free trade across the globe has been maintained since the first ancient navies floated wooden rafts on big ponds by the military forces that are necessary to keep the trade routes open. If Mr. Paul stopped to think about it for a minute he might remember the line "to the shores of Tripoli" from the Marine Hymn, referring to the Marines taking on the Barbary Pirates at the behest of Thomas Jefferson in 1803 and onward.

I would like to see our troops disengage in places like Libya where we are doing no good and getting nowhere and don't even appear to have a battle plan. But elsewhere such as Japan, Germany and South Korea, countries cited by Mr. Paul in his Saturday speech, we are there to insure that the trade routes stay open and previous histories of dominance by dictators and brutal regimes are not repeated.

Mr. Paul might get cheers and votes from anti-war supporters across the political spectrum, but they are not realistic, in fact I see them as hopelessly naive, and I don't see him going much further when real votes are taken.

The final votes at the Ames Straw Poll were: Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)- 4,823 votes
Ron Paul (R-Texas)- 4,671 votes; Tim Pawlenty - 2,293 votes; Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)- 1,657 votes; Herman Cain - 1,456 votes; Rick Perry - 718 votes; Mitt Romney - 567 votes; Newt Gingrich - 385 votes; Jon Huntsman - 69 votes; and Thad McCotter (R-Mich.) - 35 votes.

The Ames, Iowa Straw Poll is held only in years prior to the presidential election when there is not a GOP incumbent. Let's hope the next one isn't held until 2019.

FOX the Clear Winner in GOP Debate

2011-08-12T10:52:00.002-04:00

Eight Republicans who want to be president of the United States met on the stage in Iowa last night in a debate hosted by FOX News and the Washington Examiner.

The Winner? FOX News and the Washington Examiner!

I say that because the debate was at times heated, humorous, informative, off the wall and certainly thought provoking. In short it was great live television, and even though there is some criticism that some candidates resorted as often as possible to talking points and campaign rhetoric, there was more than sufficient spontaneity to offset the prepared comments.

Among the night's luminaries were former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich who showed once again that his intellect is sharp and his grasp of national and international issues is wide-ranging; Ron Paul who showed that if he ever became president he would give Barack Obama a run for the title of worst ever; and Herman Cain who got far too little attention.

If there was a dead spot in the night, for me anyway, it was that the panel of questioners, who overall were excellent, focused too often on the pissing match between former Wisconsin governor Tim Pawlenty and current Wisconsin Representative Michelle Bachmann.

Both are intelligent, opinionated and knowledgeable, but I don't see either of them as a national front-runner despite the polls in Iowa, and I don't care what they think of each other. I don't care who did what or how they interpret it and encouraging their back and forth attacks only took time away from the other candidates.

I watched both of them on Fox News Sunday over the past couple of months and I decided a week ago that when the primary season comes around I definitely won't be voting for Pawlenty. I made this decision because after questioning from Chris Wallace - on FNS, not during the debate - Pawlenty commented that Bachmann's level of experience is similar to that of Barack Obama's, adding words to the effect that we have seen how that worked out and we don't need to repeat that mistake.

When Wallace then asked Pawlenty point blank if Michelle Bachmann is another Obama, Pawlenty ducked the question! All he had to say was "Yes" or "No."

Instead he responded like a typical politician, using a lot of words but saying nothing. Obviously, if he is going to compare Michelle Bachmann's voting record and experience level to Barack Obama's then he is saying the two are similar and thus she is not worthy of the presidency.

But to try and parse or spin his comments is just more obfuscation and we don't need that, do we?

I was very pleased to see that when Herman Cain had an opportunity to speak he not only was forthright about his positions and past statements - in addition to having real world knowledge of how business and the economy are supposed to work - he also has learned from past slips.

For instance, on a FNS show a few months back he was not well versed on the issue of the Palestinian claim to Right of Return in the more-than-a-half-century-old dispute over the land that now comprises Israel. Cain muffed that question on FNS but obviously went right out and studied up on it because he was far better prepared last night.

Cain also did not duck questions about his support of the residents of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, who do not want a Muslim center in their community. A group of residents filed suit against Rutherford County in 2010 after the Regional Planning Commission gave the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro site plan approval for a 58,000-square-foot facility.

FOX questioners have made reference to Cain's position on this dispute several times, with the implication that his resistance is racially based and as a black man he should know better.

But Cain has articulated his position in-depth numerous times and repeatedly has made the point as he did in the debate that his opposition is not to the Muslim religion, but to the institution of Muslim Sharia law in ANY community in the United States of America. Sharia law is based on the tenets of the Muslim religion and is seen by many to be inconsistent - in areas such as equal rights for women - with modern society and legal principles.

Cain was well-versed on the Constitution noting that it does not prohibit the practice of religion, but has no room for people in any American community to establish their own laws that are different - in the case of Sharia, markedly so - from our Constitution.

Elsewhere, I have watched Ron Paul on many occasions and while he has some positions on national issues that I totally agree with, his grasp of international affairs leaves me shaking my head. It is one thing to say you don't agree with the deployment of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to say that Iran has good reason to want atomic weapons and that there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq are not supportable positions.

And to say kind things about Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who wants to destroy Israel and thinks that if the world ends in a massive explosion of heat and light he will wake up in an instant in his version of paradise - is flat out naive.

So, thanks but no thanks on Rep. Paul.

Probably the most controversial question of the evening came from panelist Byron York, political correspondent for the Examiner, who, quoting Michelle Bachmann in an interview she gave in 2006 saying she was "submissive" to her husband, asked if that would carry over to the White House if she is elected president.

The crowd booed York but I think it was a fair question especially since Bachmann said she and her husband define submissive as meaning "Respect." I looked up submissive, submit, submission and several variations of that word, especially seeking synonyms and found nothing that even came close to "respect."

Interesting. Maybe we should vet her husband.

Overall, it was a good night, and the candidates at least had an opportunity to showcase their beliefs and positions. Bret Baier was a perfect moderator, and York, Chris Wallace and Susan Ferrechio of the Examiner were both fair and incisive in their questioning.

My scores: New Gingrich, up; Herman Cain, up; Tim Pawlenty, down; Michelle Bachmann even; Rick Santorum, even; Jon Huntsman, down; Ron Paul, down; Mitt Romney, even.

The next big deal is the Ames straw poll tomorrow which is a non-binding popularity contest that really has no great weight or meaning beyond what the media gives it.

What we'll learn tomorrow is how successful the candidates have been at convincing the residents of Iowa that they would be a perfect choice for president. After that, there is a long wait for the caucus and primary votes where the race for the nomination picks up speed, and drops off the losers.

Vlad Putin, Russian Strongman, Eyes Hanoi, As Does the "Mince and Wince" US

2011-08-04T11:14:00.007-04:00

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was all over the international news this week, calling out the United States as international parasites, and trying to impress a group of Young Communists by climbing a rock wall without a harness and attempting to bend a frying pan with his bare hands.

He didn't get the job done on the frying pan, but it seems as though he probably could score some points with young Russians who were born years after the jackboots of communist oppression were lifted off of their parents' necks. And lest we forget, those jackboots were put there to a major degree by Putin himself, when he was a big noise with the Russian Secret Police.

Putin is known for getting headlines, but it appears there is far more to his grandstanding this time than meets the eye; certainly more than the national or international media cares about.

Putin likes the world to see him as a strongman, not one of these American and European unweaned international metrosexual pusillanimous purveyors of pap who think the United Nations is the answer to humanity's ills. Putin is a stand-up guy, who, whether you agree with him or not, is right in your face if you disagree with him or are in the way of his intentions.

Also, even though the Soviet Union with its brutal repression of lands under Russian control has been dead for two decades, Putin still is capable of backing up his words with actions. Not like it was 25 years ago, but still formidable in many regards.

I've been told that lately those intentions include a renewed presence in Hanoi - yes Hanoi, capital of Vietnam, where it was the Russians who provided most of the support for the communist regime during the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese apparently still owe the Russians about $10 billion - which buys a lot more in Vietnam and Russia than it does here.

So the Russians are in Hanoi now, using diplomacy to get them where they really want to be - Cam Ranh Bay the massive deep water port that has extensive support facilities built and expanded by the United States in the 1960s.

After South Vietnam fell to the communists in 1975, and after they crushed a rebellion of the South's rice farmers - the communists classify them as "peasants" - in 1977 when the farmers discovered what collectivization is really all about, and after they put hundreds of thousands of people into concentration camps where tens of thousands died, and after a million more fled on the South China Sea as boat people with about 300,000 never making it to shore, and after Cambodian communists went on murderous rampages that made the Vietnamese communists look like Boy Scouts, Russia and Vietnam signed a 25-year agreement that gave Russia extensive rights in the ports the US built.

The website Russian Defense Policy http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/return-to-cam-ranh/ states in a blog written last October that "According to Newsru.com and Vremya novostey, in 1979, Moscow and Hanoi signed a 25-year agreement by which the Soviet Pacific Fleet's 17th Squadron gained access to Cam Ranh. Vietnam allowed the Soviet Navy to base 10 surface ships, 8 submarines with a submarine support ship, and 6 auxiliaries at the port. The Soviets had POL storage, an ASW (anti-submarine warfare) and missile armaments base and technical service unit, a Naval Infantry sub-unit, and an air regiment at Cam Ranh.

The base was initially free, but Hanoi asked for $300 million in rent in 1998. In 2001, Moscow decided not to extend its agreement with Vietnam, and the last Russian elements departed Cam Ranh in mid-2002."

Now you probably are asking yourself what is prompting Russia to suddenly be taking an interest in Vietnam again. Actually, you should first be asking yourself why we, meaning the United States of America, also are taking a renewed interest in Vietnam.

For starters, there have been plenty of people in the US trying to renew relations with Vietnam - the communists that is - for decades, partly through trying to convince the American public to "get over" the war, all the while pushing the false claim that Vietnamese farmers, the Viet Cong, defeated the world's greatest military. But the American public is far more educated than the people who like to think of them as sheep are prepared to believe, and they know that the American military didn't lose a single major battle in Vietnam, the entire VC military was annihilated in 1968 and 1969, and that the northern communists were given a free hand to destroy the south by our own State Department and Congress.

So efforts to increase tourism and business opportunities have fallen short. I've been invited to go back several times in the last 10 years and really have no interest - until very recently.

AMERICAN LEADERS - OBAMA, KERRY

I don't want to visit the communist "Victory Museum" in Saigon where Jane Fonda and John Kerry are displayed prominently as Heroes of the Revolution. I also don't want to return to the scene of battles where we shellacked the communists only to read their self-serving propaganda on little plaques where they declare victories that they never enjoyed during the fighting.

RUSSIAN LEADER - VLADIMIR PUTION, ENOUGH SAID
That being said, we are expanding our diplomatic presence in Hanoi at the same time the Russians are, and we are once again locking horns with our old enemies - and depending on the point in history, our old friends - over the diplomatic tables. Why?

China.

Republican President Richard Nixon went to visit China in 1972, leading to the abandonment of Vietnam by the US Congress in 1973, and the fall of the democratic south to the communists in 1975. He was credited with "opening" China to the west.

Ever since, subsequent Democratic administrations in the US have been giving more and more business and secret technology to China, and worrying the hell out of our Pacific allies including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, not to mention the Russians.

jimmy carter renegotiated our long-standing agreements with Taiwan to appease China, even though Taiwan is the last bastion of a democratic Chinese government. Likewise, Bill and Hillary Clinton helped the Chinese get their hands on our rocket guidance technology by reclassifying secret circuitry as video game technology, at the same time our 99-year lease for bases in the Philippines lapsed thus denying us access to the massive Subic Bay naval facility, Clark Air Force base and others.

The Clintons' largess led to generational jumps in Chinese rocketry and satellite capabilities, and since then they also have acquired our sonar technology and our stealth technology, including samples of the paint used on the Black Hawk stealth helicopter that went down in Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan when the Al Qaeda leader was killed by US Navy Seals.

A friend who studies the region told me about 20 years ago that major world powers were ignoring China's advancement in its naval forces, which was not considered a smart move. Since then Democratic administrations have gone out of their way to help the Chinese while simultaneously weakening the US.

The alignment of forces in the Pacific and Southeast Asia can be easily figured out if you take an objective look at what happened there after the democratic governments in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the communists after they were abandoned by the US in 1975. In all three countries the communists went on a rampage of reprisals, slaughtering millions of civilians from the very young to the very old, while imprisoning and enslaving millions more.

As bad as things were in Laos and Vietnam, they were much worse in Cambodia where the communist Khmer Rouge forces went on a four-year orgy of murder, rape and torture. At least 2 million Cambodians, nearly half the country's population, and probably many more, were slaughtered.

In fact, the "excesses" of the Khmer Rouge which were hidden from public view by a compliant media, eventually became too widely known and were seen as an embarrassment to "moderate" communist regimes worldwide. The situation became so egregious that Vietnam's communists ultimately invaded Cambodia's communists in an effort to stop the slaughter before everyone was dead.

In that conflict the Vietnamese were backed by the Russians who had backed them during the war with the United States, but China jumped in and helped out the Cambodians. China even launched an invasion of North Vietnam's border provinces to draw some of the Vietnamese forces away from the war in Cambodia.

Ultimately the Vietnamese communists prevailed over the Cambodian communists and the slaughter and torture were brought back to "acceptable" levels. But in that region, the Vietnamese still hate the Chinese, and even though the Russians were seen as humorless cheapskates, they still are considered an ally.

To add to the chaos, the world now has a fawning US president who bows to Muslim terrorists, and kisses the asses of Chinese officials at every opportunity - remember he made the Dalai Lama use the trash entrance at the White House so as not to offend the Chinese who are systematically eliminating the people and culture of Tibet and Nepal.

Barack Obama has shown by his own actions and those of his bureaucrats, cabinet members and advisers that he believes the US should be relegated to a third-world trash heap for having the audacity to emerge as the leader of the planet, and he obviously is quite content to let China take over and dictate our future.

But, President Obama notwithstanding, the United States still has people who believe we can regain our world status with appropriate leadership in Congress and the White House, and even the hand-wringers realize that there has to be some kind of counterbalance to an unbridled Chinese presence in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Use of the deep-water ports in Cam Ranh Bay and DaNang - also housing US built facilities - is key to an economically viable deployment of naval forces in the area.

We know this and Vladimir Putin knows this. And as much as Putin hates the US, you can bet he hates the Chinese more.

That point wasn't expounded on to a great degree but this segment from the Russia Defense Policy website does give the briefest of hints to the thinking of at least some Russian military and political leaders:

"Izvestiya quotes independent military analyst Aleksandr Khramchikhin:

"Theoretically, I welcome the reestablishment of a Navy base at Cam Ranh. For Russia, it is a very composite and most useful facility abroad. Without it, the operations of the Pacific Fleet are impeded. Also very little remains of the Pacific Fleet. This fact, however, doesn’t change the usefulness of the base at Cam Ranh. Such a step could, of course, create certain foreign policy difficulties for Russia. I suppose the U.S. and China will express dissatisfaction, but this will hardly have any real effect. As concerns Vietnam, it would pay to view it as our most important ally. Russia largely cast it aside after the collapse of the USSR. This was a gross mistake worth correcting."

It's worth recalling Khramchikhin may view Vietnam through a slightly Sinophobic prism."

That last line speaks volumes. Slightly Sinophobic. I bet.

So, we saw Mr. Putin take the international stage once again, but don't dismiss his presence as theatrics. He was making a point. Obama was probably out golfing or sneaking a smoke behind his wife's back, and I doubt he cares in the least what Putin is doing.

But there are plenty of Americans who are paying attention, and they should be.

Note to my Russian readers: Yes I know you read my blogs. And not just from Moscow either. Please pass this message on to Mr. Putin: If you want to do strongman tricks it pays to practice in private before you fail in public. There are techniques to all of these tricks.

Yes you have to be strong, but you also have to know the technique. Hint: heat the frying pan before you try to bend it. Not to the point of cooking your hands hot, but beyond room temp. Metal tends to bend more easily at higher temperatures.

You're welcome.

Reid Offers the Potomac Two-Step; Tea Party GOP Wise to Him; Dictator Obama?

2011-07-29T10:16:00.007-04:00

Did you ever see the Harrison Ford Movie Clear and Present Danger - from the Tom Clancy book of the same name - where Ford, playing fictional National Security Advisor Jack Ryan catches the president of the US running an illegal anti-drug operation in South America?

When he confronts the president Ford's character says "It gives me no pleasure to do it, sir. As acting deputy director of intelligence, it is my duty to report this matter to the Senate oversight committee."

The president replies, "You're not going to do that. ... No, no. You've got yourself a chip in the big game now. You're gonna tuck that away, you are going to save that for a time when your own ass is on the line and then you're gonna pull it out. And I'm going to cash it in for you. Right? But it won't go any further than that. It's the ol' Potomac two-step, Jack."

Jack Ryan responds, "I'm sorry, Mr. President, I don't dance."

Much the same scenario is playing out before the nation's eyes in Washington, D.C., as so-called Tea Party Republicans in the House of Representatives are throwing a major monkey wrench into the well-scripted nonsense being offered to the American public by both the Congress and the Obama Administration.

Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, called on Republicans in the House of Representatives to pass a measure being put forth by House Majority Leader John Boehner, supposedly his sworn political and philosophical opponent, which is opposed by sufficient House Republicans to block it.

Saying Boehner's plan is a good deal, which in itself makes me suspicious, Reid added, "Put those chips in your pocket and walk away."

Reid's comments were part of a well orchestrated effort by the Obama Administration to force the newly elected GOP representatives to forget who put them in office and why. Both GOP and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are reminding these representatives on an hourly basis that their future Congressional assignments are on the line if they don't kowtow to the long-established D.C. insiders.

Interestingly, in the midst of all the talk that the country will go into default and shut down come Tuesday if the GOP reps don't roll over and betray the voters who elected them, Obama now admits that may not be exactly true.

Obama has been saying for weeks that if he doesn't get his way right now, the country will go into default and we won't be able to pay our bills. But as of this morning's address to the nation at roughly 10:39 a.m., Mr. Obama changed his tune, I guess after so many financial experts said he was wrong.

Now Obama says we DO have the money to pay our bills, "but we don't have a triple-A political system. The time to put party first is over."

I don't see this as a party issue. I see this as an issue of principle. And the only principle I am seeing is coming from the Tea Party Republicans who are bucking the pressure from the media, the White House, the Senate and even their own party leaders in the House of Representatives.

South Carolina Republican representative Tim Scott told Fox News this morning that "we have to save this nation from financial ruin."

Tim Scott R-SC

Rep. Scott is the kind of upcoming Congressional leader we need. He is part of the Tea Party movement, he was elected by the people of his community, district and state to represent them and act in accordance with their wishes. He is doing what he should be doing, and he is standing strong and tall.

The national GOP needs a lot more people like Tim Scott and a lot less like John Boehner and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

But President Obama says he wants this issue resolved, and on his terms and his terms alone. If the Congress doesn't submit to his dictatorial decrees, "Some kind of enforcement mechanism" must be enacted to force Congress to act on his preferred deficit spending plan, he said today.

I said it the other day and I'll say it again. We are on extremely dangerous ground here.

The President of the United States is threatening Congress because some of its members are doing the job they were elected to do. He is acting like a budding dictator and he is not only threatening Congress, he is threatening to continue running amok over the US Constitution.

OK, let's fix that. Mr. President step down for the good of the country.

Interestingly, Clancy addressed this issue in his book, so I'll let Clear and Present Danger speak once again.

James Earl Jones, playing Admiral Greer, says to Harrison Ford, "You took an oath, if you recall, when you first came to work for me. And I don't mean to the National Security Advisor of the United States, I mean to his boss, and I don't mean the President. You gave your word to his boss, you gave your word to the people of the United States. Your word is who you are."

The American economy is headed straight for a black hole of debt from which, at some point, it will be impossible to emerge. We can either put the brakes on right now, or sentence our offspring to an uncertain world of darkness and pain.

Hang tough Tea Party Republicans. The American people, your bosses, are watching you closely, to see who you are, and whether you are people of your word.

Goodbye to a Favored Uncle; Do You Believe in ESP?

2011-07-28T09:06:00.009-04:00

I first published this column at the consumer website CTWatchdog.com and it appears here in a slightly longer form. The origins of my interest in politics and the military are touched on. The part about ESP is incredible and leaves me with questions, but no answers. Perhaps you have some.

When I was growing up I was very fortunate to have some of the best uncles a boy could ask for. On my dad's side were my uncles Bill and Chuck, and on my mother's side were my uncles Bob, Vic and Floyd. My aunts were gems too, and as I look back I realize I was very fortunate when it came to relatives.

I saw my maternal uncles and aunts all the time because we lived close to each other in upstate New York. Dad's sisters and their families lived in the New York City area and I saw them less frequently, but the visits were always great times nonetheless.

Last week, the last of my uncles, Mom's older brother Victor Brimmer, who was closest to her in age and a staunch ally in her fights against my siblings and their children who tried to force her into an Alzheimer's home, died at the age of 97. (I expounded on mom's fight in my book Granny Snatching, and write about elder abuse in my CTWatchdog columns.) Uncle Vic had been in declining health for some time, and had developed pneumonia which in the end he just couldn’t beat.

I have decided not to tell Mom of Uncle Vic's death for the time being. There is nothing she can do about it and considering the mental blows she has taken due to these family attacks I am sure it would do more harm than good. They remained very close over the years and she called him regularly after she moved to Connecticut, so I will have to break the news eventually; just not now.

In addition to his support for Mom, my memories of Uncle Vic represent some of the best times of my younger days. He lived in Grafton, which is on the way from Albany to the intersection of Vermont, Massachusetts and New York states, for more than 60 years, on a vast tract of land that at one time encompassed some 300 acres, mostly wooded, although there also were fields that he rented to local farmers for haying.

Vic and his first wife, my late aunt Mill, both loved to ride horses; he had ridden on his parents' farm in Center Brunswick, New York, and a picture of Mill riding when she was a young woman still exists. Vic was a founding member of the Grafton Trail Riders Club.

He had barns, horses that they had rescued from a rodeo circuit – Gringo, a paint, Poncho a dark brown horse of indeterminate breed, and Chiquita a grey. Of the three only Gringo was ridden with any regularity and Vic for a while was an easily recognized figure riding Gringo in Grafton's annual July 4th parade.

But one year Vic had gone a long time between training rides with Gringo, and the horse was not up to his usual pleasant manners. As Vic told it, he led the parade with Gringo walking on his hind feet, and after that year, Vic and Gringo were "uninvited."

But the horses nonetheless were friendly in their own more familiar surroundings and I often fed them sliced apples or carrots and occasional sugar cubes. The barns were across a dirt road from the house, and once past the fences and into the pasture there were innumerable diversions for children of that time.

There was an old wagon road leading down to the "crick" in the upstate New York Dutch parlance – creek to everyone else – and along the way there were huge boulders to climb, an old tack house to explore, and upon arrival at the crick a swimming hole that my family helped Vic create by both digging it out and damming the stream with the plentiful rocks. (We could never do that today.)

Further downstream there were waterfalls and in years when there was an extended snowmelt you could stand underneath them and receive a cooling, sometimes ice cold, shower, even in mid-summer. If you crossed the crick below the waterfalls you would emerge into a sort of primeval forest, where huge hemlocks kept the air cool and decades of needles dropping on the forest floor kept it soft and spongy.

I spent several very special weeks as the guest of my aunt and uncle over the years when I was a teen, and walks through the woods and pastures, in summer and snowbound winters, were favorite activities.

My family went to visit them quite often, and a fireplace and picnic table that nestled up to a large boulder in one of the pastures marked the gathering place for July 4th family picnics. Thanksgivings also were a favorite time in which the extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins, boyfriends and girlfriends could easily swell the size of the dinner party to 30 or so.

Mom and Dad visited them on weekends quite frequently, usually on Sunday afternoons after church. Those were some spectacular times, as Vic and my father, with Mill and my mother chiming in when they could, completely ignored the sage advice to avoid talks of politics and religion.

Dad would usually stop on the way to their house and pick up a few quarts of Fitzgerald's beer, a local brew from Troy, New York that is long gone but was quite good. The "discussions" I remember best go back to 1960 and the Nixon/Kennedy election, and again in 1964 when it was Johnson vs. Goldwater.

As I recall one side said Goldwater would drop the A-bomb on the communists, and the other side said he should. I forget who took which side.

Vic and Mill loved to hunt and fish and the area was crawling with game. Further up the old wagon road, heading into the woods a beaver family once built its own dam creating another pond. Deer were seen regularly, and once Aunt Mill found herself picking wild blueberries on the other side of a huge bush from a black bear!

They raised Springer Spaniels for many years, and even rabbits for a while. In his middle ages Vic gave up hunting – he had been an expert with shotgun, rifle and a beautiful recurved bone bow – and took up wildlife photography instead.

Vic had trained as a dental technician and was a member of the American Dental Association. He worked with a firm in Albany and then started his own firm, but he didn’t like city life and eventually moved his business to his house in Grafton.

Vic was a trailblazer in terms of running his home-based business. He built a lab in his basement, where he did gold inlays for false teeth, receiving the molds by mail and shipping them out the same way when he was finished. I always marveled at that facet of his life because when he wanted a break he could walk outdoors and ride the horses or go fishing if he so desired - but he still got paid!

As a youth working on my grandfather's farm Vic and my mother often teamed up, due to them being the youngest of the four children, and my mother's ability to drive teams of horses and help out with the haying and other farm work. Vic had incredible hand strength, probably due to milking a herd of dairy cows by hand twice a day for years, and when in high school he could bend a 10-penny nail into a horseshoe shape.

When he was old enough to drive the farm truck he started taking the raw milk to the processor in nearby Cropseyville each day, sneaking a smoke from cigars he hid in the truck. He allowed Mom to ride with him as long as she didn't squeal and she never did.

In the mid-80s my Aunt Mill died and Vic was a lonesome guy for quite some time. But he had always loved to dance – he and Aunt Mill even transformed one of the unused barns into a dance hall named the Oxbow Ranch which they ran for a few years, and the place was jammed on weekends.

I will never forget my uncle sitting in with the band one night in the mid-50s, singing a commercial song from the Save the Baby cough linament. He forgot the lyrics, as did everyone else, but it didn't matter. The band knew the chords, the joint was jumping and everyone was cheering as Vic did the chorus over and over. What a hoot. That man was at least two generations ahead of the karaoke craze!

Vic's property was about a half-mile up a dirt road from State Route 2 that winds its way through eastern New York and he had placed a sign at the bottom of the hill advertising the Oxbow Ranch and that breakfast and lunch were served. One of Mom's favorite stories concerned the summer morning when a carload of New York City tourists pulled in and ordered a breakfast of scrambled eggs and bacon.

Vic was not much of a cook and while he handled the coffee, toast and bacon, he didn't know how to make the scrambled eggs - Aunt Mill was out - and he had to call Mom for directions! But Mom knew her way around the kitchen, both at our house and at the Oxbow Ranch, and it all ended well, with the tourists complimenting Vic on his cooking skills.

It took Vic quite some time to get over the loss of Aunt Mill, but eventually he started getting out again, and he met his second wife Joyce, who shared his love of dancing, and antiques. They married in 1998 and she was with him until the end both as companion and caregiver.

I took Mom to Grafton one last time in 2009, about a year after she moved in with us, and they had a great visit. It was then that I told Uncle Vic how his firearms training when I was a teen helped me when I was a Marine helicopter gunner in Vietnam.

Victor Brimmer and Ella Winter 2009

The Marines taught proper firearms handling and precise target shooting at Parris Island when I was a recruit, then added the concept of "battle sights" when we later took the required infantry training. Battle sights amount to pointing your firearms directly into the enemy's center mass without too much regard for what part of the body you hit as long as you hit something and the enemy goes down.

But Uncle Vic who also had taught me firearm safety and the proper shooting positions, had a similar tactic called "snap shooting," which amounted to the same thing done quickly. I told him that snap shooting worked very well for me as a machine gunner, especially when it was clear that no friendly troops were in the field of fire.

Uncle Vic's face lit up like a Christmas tree when I told him that. We hadn't talked much about Vietnam but the knowledge that what he taught me all those years ago helped me out in combat was obviously of great comfort to him. I'm glad I told him.

Vic's life ended peacefully; he died in his sleep, shortly before 9 p.m. on Thursday July 21, 2011. But there is one more item to share.

On the last day he was alive, Mom was in an unusually agitated state. The next day Mom was quiet, even introspective and spent much of the day just watching her television. It was that night, Friday, that Joyce called with the news that Vic had died the night before. I decided to say nothing about it for the time being, so as not to upset Mom.

The next morning, Mom awoke and her very first words were about funerals and graveyards! She was dredging up memories from 70 years ago and more, all about death.

Then, she called to my wife, asking her to come to the kitchen where Mom was reading her daily newspaper. The table where she sits looks out on a wide deck that is adorned with annual flowers that she and my wife planted in the spring. Hummingbirds and butterflies come to the flowers and if it is raining or too hot she still can see them.

Access is by a six-foot wide slider. When my wife entered the kitchen Mom said, "Vic was at the slider, can you let him in?" My wife was in shock and to be certain of what she heard, asked Mom, "Are you talking about your brother, Vic?"

Mom answered in the affirmative, adding that he had approached the slider, stood looking at her for a long moment, and then slowly turned and walked away. I swear to you this is true, and I have no explanation for it.

I told Joyce and she said "I believe Vic was helping her," trying to set Mom's mind at ease. Mom's vision also gave Joyce great comfort concerning the death of her husband, she said.

I don't know what all this means, but maybe some readers have some insight that I lack and can share it with us.

For the moment, I’d like to leave you with a line from the Garrison Keillor movie, Prairie Home Companion, in which actress Virginia Madsen, states, "The death of an elderly man is not a tragedy."

Uncle Vic lived a long and productive life, he saw triumphs and tragedies, and the one thing that saddens me the most is that he never had children and thus his line of the Brimmer family has come to an end. Still, his life was rich and fulfilling, and his death is more a normal part of living than tragic.

But he will still be missed.

Chris Wallace Gets it Done on Fox News Sunday; But Timothy Geithner is a Hack!

2011-07-25T13:54:00.003-04:00

Occasionally in this column I give Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace a hard time. If I do, it's because I believe he deserves it, mainly because I think he crossed the "fair and balanced" line or he let someone off the hook who should have been pressed harder.

Sunday, though, Wallace did a great job on an intense interview with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and if I am going to give Wallace a hard time on occasion, then at least he should hear the good side too.

(I have a very personal quirk about journalists who cover politics and the military. It comes from being a journalist and before that an active Marine serving as a helicopter machine gunner in Vietnam. I, and many, many others believe that since we won all the battles in Vietnam and at least twice pushed the communists to the brink of surrender, the communists' ultimate victory over the South Vietnamese, and their subsequent murderous rampage through much of Southeast Asia slaughtering millions who didn't agree with them is the direct responsibility of the media and politicians. Thus my insistence we keep politicians' feet to the fire and journalists do their job right!)

Geithner was on FNS supposedly to explain how the Obama Administration is working so hard, in a non-partisan, politically objective fashion to resolve its major differences with Congress over the fact that our country is rushing headlong into an abyss of fiscal insolvency.

Obama, who seems more and more like the Paris Hilton of politics, wants the government to extend his line of credit by a few more trillion. (It is easier to swallow if you don't say thousands of billions or hundreds of millions of millions.) The Republican led House of Representatives is saying no, and the Democratic led Senate is not exactly backing Obama either.

Republicans are opposed to giving him any more credit unless he agrees to cut trillions from his spending sprees which Obama doesn't agree with, so we are at an impasse with an artificially imposed deadline looming, at which time we supposedly will default as a nation. We won't, but it certainly gives an air of uncertainty and intensity to the situation.

Anyway, in his supposedly non-partisan blathering Geithner repeatedly blamed the entire fiscal mess on the GOP – again – even though it was Democrats who engineered the housing collapse which is one of the major facets of the current fiscal embarrassment – not that the GOP is squeaky clean. If that was a non-partisan appearance I'd hate to see this guy if he was put in charge of Obama's dirty campaign tricks.

What Geithner said he really wanted was to "take default off the table until after the election," in 2012. That's because virtually everyone in the Obama Administration considers the bulk of the American people to be mindless sheep who will forget all this by the next presidential election 15 months from now, if it temporarily goes away now.

Just like we'll forget waging war in Libya without Congressional approval, refusing to salute the flag, a phony birth certificate, withdrawing prematurely from Afghanistan, nationalizing the auto industry, the gross excesses of Obama Care, etc., etc., and etc. We won't, but the administration doesn't believe that.

So Obama believes that if the default option is off the table we all will go back to sleep, mindlessly vote him in again next year, and we'll wake up on Inauguration Day 2013 and suddenly realize to our dismay that we are really screwed.

Once he gets the temporary increase in his credit limit, without any restrictions on his spending spree habits, Geithner said, Obama then wants to impose "A framework of tough reforms that forces Congress to act."

Is this guy serious? Congress is acting, Tim; they are just refusing to give in on your boss' demands that he gets what he wants when he wants it without any lip – or checks and balances – from the other branches of government.

Wallace pressed Geithner and pressed him hard on these points – maybe Fox has it on podcast somewhere so you can see it. But Geithner just went on about completely revamping the US government's fiscal controls, which means giving all power to the executive branch and making the Congress a rubber-stamp body with no control even over a spending addict. (Can you imagine Obama and Hilton out shopping together?)

This is seriously dangerous territory folks. I even heard a "pundit" on Fox Business early in the afternoon segment today saying essentially the same thing. This is seriously, seriously dangerous territory.

The reason we have an impasse at the moment is because our system of government that has been in existence since 1789, is working! Our founding fathers knew what happened when one person - say a dictator or a king - was in control of everything and everyone, that's why they fought the American Revolution.

And when they finally enacted the Constitution, which is the one we still exist under, they deliberately wrote in a series of checks and balances so we wouldn't wake up one morning under control of a dictator. Yet that is exactly what I heard from Timothy Geithner yesterday; the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury laying the groundwork for the destruction of our form of government, in favor of a dictatorial format.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm not buying into this nonsense. I think there are enough Democrats in Congress who are not far-left ideologues to stand up for our Constitution and get a better figurehead for their party than this closet communist who has delusions of grandeur.

Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. What a joke. His job should be retitled as Minister of Obama Propaganda.

Bush Is Off The Hook! Van Hollen Blames ... Us! Not the Failed Policies of the Obama Administration

2011-07-18T07:58:00.006-04:00

It's official! Past President George W. Bush is no longer the whipping boy for the Democratic Party's point-the-finger-at-someone-else-blame-game for the dismal state of the economy, foreign relations, national defense and especially the massive multi-trillion dollar budget deficit.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday yesterday, Maryland Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen who is as much responsible for the dismal state of national affairs as anyone else, told Chris Wallace that the American people "can NOT choose to not pay the bills that THEY incurred."

What? Aside from the arrogance of that statement, not to mention the double negative, we have a president who has not come up with a single good idea for running the country. Our president can't prove who he was, who he is, or even where he was for a good portion of his pre-presidential life.

He has spent more money unsuccessfully bombing Libya to boost his "war-time president image" than it would cost to operate all the nation's military music organizations for an entire year, and in the context of this issue has increased the national debt beyond all federal debt accrued in the first 204 years of the nation’s history.

But Van Hollen says WE are to blame?

This mindless lemming - Van Hollen - is now blaming the American public for the reprehensible actions of an out-of-control federal government! Did he clear that with Barack Obama first?

Is this now the official line of the Democratic Party? That the American voting public is responsible for the actions of Congress and the Obama Administration? Is this a sick takeoff on that line from the movie Animal House? "Face it America, you screwed up! You elected us!"

What was amazing about this incredible change in Congressional direction, insofar as blaming anyone else for the failed policies of the Obama Administration, is that Wallace let it go without comment!

Van Hollen is the kind of guest on the Sunday morning talk shows who gives me the impetus to watch Holmes Inspection on the Home and Garden Channel even if I've already seen the episode. But I stayed tuned to Fox News Sunday yesterday because I wanted to see Herman Cain, who appeared after Van Hollen, and I'm glad I did.

Cain is a good man, and frankly I think he's a viable presidential candidate. He tripped up a little when he appeared on FNS earlier this year - he wasn't exactly sure what the Palestinian claim to Right of Return was all about in the continuing strife between Israel and the terrorist organization Hamas, but that is not a disqualifier in my opinion.

But on Sunday Cain did remarkably well, even though Wallace did everything he could to convince Cain to drop out of the race for the GOP nomination if he doesn't do well in the upcoming Iowa Straw Poll. Wallace kept referring to Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's strong position in a number of polls leading up to the Iowa Straw Poll as the reason why Cain should drop out.

Guess which GOP presidential aspirant won the last Iowa Straw Poll? Mitt Romney! Guess where he ended up after the dust settled? Out of the race. He not only is not president, he wasn't even the ultimate GOP nominee.

The Iowa Straw Poll is a great place for candidates to get some national attention in the summer doldrums, but it hardly can be used as a national indicator of who is the best candidate. The straw poll precedes the Iowa Caucus which is held in January.

Know who won the 2008 GOP caucus in Iowa? Mike Huckabee. He out-polled Romney who only five months earlier was the darling of the Straw Poll. Oh, and Huckabee isn't president either, and he also was not the GOP nominee in 2008. In fact, the ultimate GOP nominee, John McCain, who isn't president either, didn't even participate in the Iowa Straw Poll last time.

I was somewhat curious about Wallace's insistence that Cain drop out of if he isn't at least a third-place finisher in the Iowa Straw Poll, especially since he ignored all the other candidates in the race for the GOP nomination and focused on Bachmann.

Now, I like her too, but this is way too early for me to be deciding who will get my vote although I can tell you, I'd rather go with one of the newer candidates, maybe Cain if he can hang in there, than any of the so-called "establishment" candidates. The establishment isn't doing very well for us, in either party, and I believe some fresh blood, new ideas and an absence of hidden ties to power brokers is the way to really get America out of this mess we're in.

I also noticed something else about Bachmann in the past couple of weeks that is worthy of comment. She has flubbed the answers on a couple of issues, showing that even though she currently holds office that doesn't make her perfect either.

Know what the media did when she goofed? Nothing. They gave her a pass. Know what that means? The mainstream media wants Bachmann to be the GOP candidate, probably so they can pull these errors and a bunch of other issues out of the closet at the appropriate time and use them to boost Obama over her.

Can you imagine what would happen to Sarah Palin if she erred in public? Hell, the media goes after her even when she's right, such as the Paul Revere issue where she proved that she knows her American history and the media only knows what it rewrites.

But for Bachmann, silence.

Go ahead call me a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean there aren't conspiracies. It only takes two people to conspire you know - and that's the law, not opinion.

Herman Cain wasn't the least bit flustered by Wallace yesterday, which means I'll keep watching and waiting, and hoping that maybe by the time we get to primary votes in my state, he will be a strong option.

There was one other segment of FNS yesterday that is worthy of comment because it too involved a commentator who didn't get flustered.

The second half-hour of the show is given over largely to a panel discussion of the current issues, which I used to like a lot, especially when Brit Hume was on every week because he was a great counter-point to the liberal Juan Williams.

Hume wasn't there Sunday, but Williams was, and so was another liberal, John Podesta. Opposing them was Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president. I like Liz Cheney, both for her extensive knowledge of government and world issues, and her toughness.

During the discussion Liz was making a point on Obama's budget deficits and the federal debt, and a good one too, when both Podesta and Williams who flanked her at the table, jumped ugly all over her, a decibel or so just below shouting at her. In the live version of the show it went on for at least 10 seconds, maybe 15, but she never wavered. (In the taped version of the show show in mid-afternoon and early evening the confrontation appeared to have been edited down to only a few seconds, but in the original morning version, it went on longer.)

In a classic display of the way liberal men really view women, they not only tried to beat up on her, it took two of them to do it ... and she kicked their asses. Wallace ultimately stepped in to shut them down and let her speak, but frankly, he wasn't needed.

So kudos to Liz Cheney for standing her ground and taking it right back to Podesta and Williams, and shame on them for both their approach, their lack of knowledge and their attempts to bully a woman to cover up their weaknesses. Finally congratulations to former President George W. Bush for finally shaking the "it's his fault" monkey off his back.

Want to see one reason why our country is so deep in debt? Take a minute and watch the video below. Warning: it will probably make you angry.

Score One for Obama – He Watches Office Space! But Opens Door for Cyber Attacks on National Defense

2011-07-15T15:57:00.002-04:00

If you haven’t seen the movie Office Space stop what you are doing and go watch it right now!

Especially take note of the restaurant manager who constantly berates Jennifer Aniston for wearing only "the bare minimum" of flair – little magnet-like pins with cool logos and witty sayings that are supposed to go on her waitress uniform to show she is a fun person.

"But I thought you wanted 15 pieces of flair" her character says. "Well that's fine, if you are the kind of person who is satisfied doing the bare minimum," he retorts. Then he refers her to a bubbly little pain in the ass of a wait-guy who has 37 pieces of flair on his uniform which apparently is supposed to mean he is lots more fun than Aniston's character.

Well, not to me but let's not go there.

Aniston ends up flipping off her boss and quitting the job. Good move that makes a good movie even better.

Now, back to reality. President Barack Obama held a news conference on the debt and budget crises today – he ignored the news about China hacking the Pentagon computers and stealing our stealth aircraft technology – and twice he used the "bare minimum" argument for why he should ignore Republicans' alternatives to his plan.

"If you just want to do the bare minimum." What a tremendous orator, communicator and all around good guy. I bet in a fit of fiscal restraint he fired his high priced White House speech writers and started watching cult flicks instead to get a cheap supply of great one-liners. Our President.

Karl Rove the GOP strategist and former Bush Administration power player decimated Obama's arguments on the Fox Business Channel right after the President went back to the Oval Office to plot out his next golf game. But I couldn't get Office Space out of my mind.

I mean, here is a guy who wants the world to think he is a devout Muslim without ever going to the local mosque, or a devout Christian without ever going to church, but in reality is a communist who wants to destroy the foundation of American wealth by replacing corporations with government.

Communists have to attack corporations because in reality their economic model was formed in the days of aristocracies and monarchies which pretty much died a natural death a century ago. So if communists want to retain any sense of relevancy they have to dumb down the educational system and then spew hatred for corporations to keep the masses diverted and engaged.

Rove said Obama's attacks on Republicans for supposedly preventing him from creating a workable budget plan that will make everything hunky-dory was hypocritical, and I agree. For starters, he ignored his own words and deeds for the past three years, not that you'll see that on the news because half the media talk about how he looked rather than what he said.

In fact the press conference was supposed to be all about Obama being "the grown up" in the negotiations while Republicans are supposed to be acting "childish."

Seriously. These ass-wipes are talking about who can out-posture whom while our country is on the brink of financial ruin and we are under constant siege from communists and Islamo-fascist terrorists. And no one says so much as a word about the fact that China – which also means North Korea and Iran – has our stealth technology, our sonar technology, and our satellite technology.

That means they know how to shoot down our stealth aircraft, and build their own planes that will avoid our stealth seeking capabilities. Don't put away the ham radios and communication wire just yet.

Know what I think? I think Obama knows damn well that he isn't going to see a second term in the White House and he's goofing off for the next 18 months while our enemies, his friends, build a rocket that can be launched from Iran on Inauguration Day 2013 just in time to blow the hell out of the swearing in ceremony for the next president.

Don't agree? Prove me wrong. At least we'll be talking about real issues instead of whether the guy who was elected on leadership capabilities can stop worrying about whether he looks presidential instead of acts presidential.

Oh, and while I was out driving today I was listening to my friend Jim Vicevich's morning talk show on WTIC-1080 radio, the CBS outlet for the Greater Hartford area – you also can listen to streaming audio on line – while he was interviewing former career US Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters about the cyber attacks on the Pentagon.

Peters, now an author and analyst, said that the Obama Administration just released its What To Do In Case Of … Rules for Cyber Attacks, which basically say we'll be very angry with the Russians, Chinese and others of their ilk if they keep stealing our stuff, but won't actually do anything about it.

Unfortunately, even though we have the capabilities to respond to their cyber attacks with our far more sophisticated cyber counter-attacks that will fry their entire Information Technology networks, and insert killer viruses in places where they'll hide for decades, the Obama Administration says we won't.

Because we are all way too nice and just want a world where everyone gets along.

See where this is going? A world where no one has a military advantage – except the Chinese who have more people that you can kill, and Russia which has more land than can be conquered, and the Islamo-fascist terrorists who have more suicide bombers than bombs. Which means the free world, in particular the United States of America, is screwed.

I bet when Obama ended his press conference he was humming Damn It Feels Good to be a Gangsta on the way back to his office.

The Great Unemployment Scam; or How to "Disappear" 11 Million Workers

2011-07-12T13:13:00.002-04:00

I have been keeping track of the economic news, particularly the unemployment figures, on various television outlets, in addition to print and radio shows for several years now and am wondering where I can find an honest journalist.

Perhaps that is too harsh a judgment of my former profession, but still, how often do you hear the real unemployment figures versus the government spin?

According to the US Debt Clock, which shows real time figures on our escalating national debt, state debt, personal debt, and a gazillion other statistics, the real number of unemployed in the US and the reported unemployed in the US are off by nearly 11 million workers – this week.

The government's latest propaganda says the unemployment rate has risen to 9.2 percent of the workforce of 139,811,815 which would be 12 million people. Now, already we have an issue with the numbers because the Debt Clock says the official number of unemployed is 14,059,706, so either the number reported is wrong or the total workforce number is wrong.

Either way is irrelevant however, because the government figures only reflect those unemployed people who are collecting benefits. Even though unemployment benefits now extend for nearly two years, there are millions of people who aren't collecting benefits, either because time ran out, or they weren't eligible in the first place.

The debt clock says the actual number of unemployed people is 24,820,067 which is nearly 18 percent of the workforce, which is double what the government and just about every news outlet in the country is reporting.

And when the media does refer to those 11 million people, without actually mentioning that there are 11 million of them, they call them "underemployed!" What the hell does underemployed mean?

Can someone tell me? I realize that the phrase usually defines people who are not working full time, or are working at jobs which pay significantly less than the jobs they are qualified for or would be working at in a full economy.

But I have a question regarding these underemployed people; how do you know how many of them there are if they are off the grid?

How do you know how many of the 11 million non-reported unemployed or underemployed are in which category. How many are sweeping floors and cleaning bathrooms at fast food restaurants versus the number that have moved in with relatives and spend their days sitting in the basement muttering and sipping cheap wine?

How many are living under bridges? How many former hippies turned yuppies are living out in the woods, sleeping in hollow logs, surrounding by warning devices to alert them when census takers are in the vicinity?

All kidding aside, this is a propaganda scam that rivals the communists, the Nazis and any other totalitarian form of government that attempts to pacify its citizens by generating a non-stop stream of "good" news or news that at least isn't as bad as the real news. We are fed this garbage every single month.

And you know what really frosts me? Every time the news is bad, the Government Accounting Office or some other official organization scales it back using accounting methods that wouldn't pass a Grade Five math course, and then two weeks later they revise the figures!

And the revised figures are always a lot worse than the "official" figures that were released a couple of weeks earlier! But you hear about it on a scale that is exponentially less than the original announcement of the so-called good news.

It really bothers me that so many news anchors and reporters take the liberty of inserting snide comments into their coverage – especially of political matters – when they want to slam some office holder or candidate. But when they are handed information that is so easy to disprove – no opinions, just hard cold facts – they regurgitate the "official" spin without so much as a nod to the fact that it is off by at least half!

I have a question for the bureaucrats, politicians and journalists who regularly spew out these half-truths looking at the public with innocent, nearly angelic visages, expecting that if they look sincere we'll buy it: DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CLAIM THAT WE'RE ALL STUPID????

News flash! We aren't. People have it figured out. And even if they aren't doing the math or watching the Debt Clock they know if they are out of work, and how many of their friends are out of work, and how much hot air they hear coming from Washington and their state capitals.

The best statistic of all will come on Election Day 2012 and that will be the one that says how many B.S. artists posing as concerned politicians find that the Debt Clock numbers now reflect them joining the real ranks of the unemployed. Maybe a president too! Unfortunately, I fear that it will be a long hard journey to find someone who reports the truth, meaning the whole truth between now and then.

Maybe I'll go down the street to visit my friend Diogenes. He'll probably be sitting in his hot tub this time of day, and if I explain this to him, he might let me borrow his lantern.

Of Budget Cuts and Memorial Services; As the Band Played On … Maybe

2011-07-11T13:41:00.007-04:00

On a somber day in late October 1968 I entered a hangar at the Marine Corps air field in Quang Tri, South Vietnam, for a memorial service to six members of my unit who had been killed in action a few days earlier. A Marine from another unit at Quang Tri also died that week and his friends were there for the service too.

A few hundred Marines squeezed into that hangar and listened grim faced as the names of the dead were read, their brief histories were recounted and the chaplains from the various faiths performed their services. Then the First Marine Aircraft Wing Band that had flown up from Da Nang played Eternal Father, with one line changed from "for those in peril on the sea" to "for those in peril in the air."

I never was one for funeral services but a Staff Sergeant in my unit had made a point earlier in the day … "If it was you, wouldn't you want to know that your friends cared enough to come for your service."

So I went and even though it has been nearly 43 years I still remember that service, the people who died, and especially the Marine Band playing Eternal Father. I hadn't expected a band at such a forward and remote airfield, but their music touched me that day, and does to this day.

I had been in Vietnam for about six months by then, had flown more than 100 combat missions and had gone a long way toward insulating my emotions from the daily horrors of combat. But for just a moment, that band reached deep inside me, touched my soul, and retained my humanity. For that I will always be grateful.

That was not my first encounter with a Marine band in that area along the violent Demilitarized Zone. In July 1968 the combat base at Khe Sanh, where a siege only a few months earlier resulted in the deaths of 274 Americans and between 10,000 and 15,000 North Vietnamese communist troops, was dismantled having been declared unnecessary with the more mobile tactics successfully being employed against the communists.

Since the fighting was so fierce there, formal decommissioning ceremonies were held and the Marine Band was flown up from Da Nang to play taps. I flew medevac missions there, had taken incoming there, along with air bursts, and marveled at the bravery of these musicians who came armed with brass and percussion instruments, dedicated to doing their jobs to memorialize and honor the fighters who survived and those who did not.

Now, all these years later, in the midst of a nationwide battle over national debt, national spending and the future of America, Congress wants to cut the budget for musicians in all services by about one third!

Are you people serious? A one-hundred million dollar cut from the bands in an overall $500 billion defense budget? Aren't there a couple of old ships that need to go into mothballs, or a few dozen aging aircraft that have outlived their serviceable lives? Don't give me that, we both know there are.

So I ask again, are you people – in Congress – serious? I guess not. In fact, the Washington Post quoted Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who sponsored the measure to reduce funding, arguing that “the Pentagon doesn’t need any more band aid.”

Band aid! Get it? Hahahahahahahahaha.

"Is this House really capable of gutting investments in women’s health care but allowing a $5 million increase in funding for military bands?" the Post also quoted this lamebrain as saying, in a classic example of diversion since one has nothing to do with the other. This woman is a brain dead, knuckle dragging, snot-slinging Neanderthal. I said that. Me, not the Post or anyone else. Me.

The Post said the assault on military music "marks the first time that spending on the military’s 154 bands has been reduced by Congress. To take effect, however, the reduction must be approved by the Senate, which has yet to take up the fiscal 2012 Defense Appropriations Bill."

The Post also has reported that in a classic example of bipartisanship Rep. John Carter (R-Tx.) has joined with his co-chairman in the Army Caucus on Capitol Hill, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tx.), in a "Dear Colleague" letter, describing the assault on the military as "highly detrimental to our armed forces," because the bands "uphold pride and morale through music at funerals, welcome home celebrations, concerts, ceremonies and other esprit-de-corps events."

The bands also make recordings, often in their own studios, which are distributed free, because they can’t by law sell them.

Bands including the U.S. Marine Corps Band, "the President’s Own," which plays at White House functions, the U.S. Army Band, the U.S. Air Force Band and the U.S. Navy Band are well known in Washington. The Coast Guard band is administratively placed under the Department of Homeland Security.

Each service band also has smaller instrumental and singing groups, such as the Marine’s Chamber Orchestra, the Army’s Singing Sergeants, the Navy’s Sea Chanters, the Air Force Strings, and the Coast Guard’s Brass Quintet and Saxophone Quartet. The services also have bands that are stationed overseas but the Washington-based bands often travel as well.

All of this is important and it may be possible to make some reductions in travel or similar costs, but the worldwide cost of the bands is $325 million annually, which the anti-American forces in Congress want reduced by more than one-third to $200 million. So they want to go from roughly one dollar per American citizen to about 66 cents per American citizen. I guess illegal aliens get a pass.

Anyway, I think this is a travesty. There is so much more to our military musicians. They help in recruiting sure, but have you seen their music on the National Mall on Independence Day? Or at the Iwo Jima Memorial? Have you heard their vocalists?

Have you seen the chamber music played at official White House functions for foreign dignitaries? Have you even been to Eighth and I Streets in Washington, D.C., on a Friday night – the home of the Commandant of the Marine Corps – and seen the Drum and Bugle Corps and the Silent Drill Team? Have you been to a summer concert by Pershing's Own, the U.S. Army Band?

Tell me that Anchors Aweigh, or Off We Go Into the Wild Blue Yonder don't get your blood pumping.

Yes, they all help with recruiting efforts and for that alone are worth their money. They also provide a path for thousands of musicians to continue on in civilian music careers, and for some they provide a full-time military career.

They were at Dover Air Base in October 1983 when the bodies of Americans killed in the Beirut bombing were brought home. They are in the vicinity of every American service member anywhere in the world, and they often are ambassadors to countries where some goodwill is a great idea.

And they go to remote, often hostile locales, to do what they do best, and remind our troops that America and Americans appreciate what they are doing, and haven't forgotten them.
Our military musicians represent the best of America, the pride of America, the hope of America. They lift our spirits and remind us of what is possible even when we are locked in desperate struggles against all enemies "foreign and domestic."

To reduce the opportunities to see and hear these ambassadors of the soul is anti-American, there is nothing else to call it. Those who support any reduction in our military music capabilities deserve to spend a two-year tour travelling to hostile environments – carrying the instruments for those who serve so willingly and so well.

Huntsman - Obama's Choice - Ringer, RINO, Kerry Imitator?

2011-06-24T12:10:00.006-04:00

A new and nearly unheard of - in national political circles - candidate has entered the race for the Republican nomination to challenge Barack Hussein Obama next year and stands as a shining example of a person with an insufficient public persona attempting to cloak himself in the guise of a previously successful person.

Just like John F. Kerry unsuccessfully attempted to portray himself as a latter day John F. Kennedy in 2004, Jon Huntsman who is so unremarkable that his own staff misspelled his name on his announcement stationery, is attempting to portray himself as a latter day Ronald Reagan.

It didn't work for Kerry and it won't work for Huntsman.

All else aside, there are two strikes against Huntsman already: he worked for Barack Hussein Obama as ambassador to China; and the American Terrorist Media loves this guy so much that they have progressed from tingles up their pant legs to virtual orgasms.

Either situation is an automatic disqualifier in my book and hopefully in the books of GOP primary voters across the country too.

Huntsman made his announcement in New Jersey's Liberty State Park, the same site where Reagan opened his 1980 presidential campaign with the Statue of Liberty in the background. But aside from the backdrop any similarity between Huntsman and Reagan ends right there.

In fact, Rush Limbaugh had a blast this week rebroadcasting excerpts from Ronald Reagan's announcement speech when he took on ex-president jimmy carter, and Huntsman's announcement speech where he promised to carry Barack Hussein Obama's water. What a difference.

Reagan took it right to Carter, promising and delivering a no-holds-barred campaign, while Huntsman opined that Obama is really a very nice guy who just has marginal policies. Whooppeee, we're in for a hot one now folks. Bleeeccchhh.

This entire approach of trying to recast oneself in someone else's image leaves me high and dry. If you can't portray yourself to the American public as who you really are, with expectations that the voting public will respond to you and your ideas - especially with modern marketing tools - you may as well quit before you start wasting everyone's time.

Remember John "Chameleon" Kerry when he went out to the Midwest on a bird hunting campaign appearance? Walked into a sporting goods store and the guy who talked about Genghis Khan with a soft 'g' in 1971, attempting to be the ultimate pseudo-intellectual back then, in 2004 asks the store clerk "Can I get me a hunting license here?"

'Get me a hunting license?' Really?

Did Ronald Reagan attempt to sell himself as a reincarnation of someone else? NO! He portrayed himself as himself and the public responded ... twice!

Did John F. Kennedy campaign on how much he was like some previous president? No way! He couldn't, he was the first Catholic to be elected president. Good grief even Obama didn't campaign on his similarities to someone else, he ran as himself -whomever that might be.

Kerry's unsuccessful attempt to build a link between himself and Kennedy should be a model of what NOT to do in a presidential campaign.

Kerry, who knew the Kennedys when he was a youngster, planned out his presidential bid decades in advance. Members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who worked tirelessly to portray the real John Kerry to American voters recalled that he carried a motion picture camera with him in Vietnam, a very, very rare occurrence in those days - especially for troops in combat who were too busy trying to stay alive to film themselves doing it.

When Kerry made his bid for the presidency his commercials were full of dashing images of American Swift Boats on patrol in Vietnam's waters; remarkably similar to Victory at Sea images of World War II PT Boats, which were Kennedy's claim to fame. In fact, the movie PT-109 about Kennedy's boat being destroyed by a Japanese destroyer and Kennedy's true-life valor in surviving and help save other crew members, included scenes that appeared to be recast in Kerry's commercials.

But John F. Kerry was NOT John F. Kennedy and all the commercials in the world could not stop the truth from emerging. His betrayal of fellow Vietnam vets in his phony Winter Soldier hearings in 1971; his violation of his oath as a US Naval officer when he went to Paris and held unauthorized, and illegal, meetings with Vietnamese communists; his inclusion in the communist war museum in Saigon as a Hero of the Revolution - right there with Jane Fonda; his betrayal as co-chair of the Senate Select Committee on POWs and MIAs of more than 300 POWs left behind in Laos; all these transgressions caught up with him.

Oddly enough, in Huntsman's case the national electorate doesn't know enough about him yet to fully understand what are certain to be his weaknesses. On the surface his resume looks pretty good - twice elected Gov. of Utah, with a huge majority the second time; an exemplary Eagle Scout; the guy who made the largest tax reduction in Utah's history, and still ended the year with a budget surplus.

But what is certain to make many voters squirm is that he has worked in appointed positions in the administrations of presidents from both parties, including Reagan's but that was decades ago. Meaning he is part of the establishment, meaning he is tainted, meaning he is going to have to reinvent himself if he is going to gain a foothold with voters across the political spectrum who are sick to death of the establishment and the status quo. Huntsman's travels on all sides of the political spectrum automatically make him suspect as a RINO and as a ringer.

So Jon Huntsman has his work cut out for him ... starting with building an identity that will work with the voters if he is so uncertain of his true self. But my advice would be to lay off the Ronald Reagan comparisons.

We've already seen the real Ronald Reagan and that act is impossible to follow.

Obama's "Nixon" Moment; "Another Vietnam" for Real

2011-06-22T08:33:00.005-04:00

President Barack Hussein Obama is poised to announce troop withdrawals from the ongoing War on Terror's Afghanistan battlefields later today, with a preordained result that can be easily determined simply by studying the failed Vietnam policies of the late President Richard Nixon and his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.

In the spring of 1969, about three months after his inauguration, Nixon announced that he was going to begin withdrawing troops from Vietnam. This apparently was his so-called "secret plan to win the war" on which he had campaigned the previous year. His timing could not have been worse, the results were disastrous, his decision failed to take into account the true situation on the battlefield, and his motivation was purely political - just like President Obama's.

When Nixon made his ill-fated announcement the US had approximately 540,000 troops in Vietnam, and for the first time in the war we had numerical parity with the communist forces, which by then were entirely composed of regular troops from the North Vietnamese Army.

A year earlier, beginning on Feb. 1, 1968, the communists had launched their Tet Offensive, using 75,000 Viet Cong guerrillas backed by North Vietnamese regulars - counting on huge numbers of South Vietnamese civilians to rise up alongside them. But the vicious terror tactics employed by the communists had alienated the South Vietnamese populace, who stayed home for the battles, and by the end of the month, with the exception of the siege at Khe Sanh and the Battle for Hue City, the fighting was over.

The Viet Cong suffered an estimated 37,500 troops killed in action, which forever broke the back of the guerrilla forces, with the North Vietnamese losing about 25,000 more.

When the siege at Khe Sanh was lifted in April the communists had lost approximately 15,000 troops of the 40,000 North Vietnamese who had surrounded the remote base, and another 8,000 died in and around Hue City. All in all it was a total military disaster for the communists.

But the American media, led by the late CBS evening news anchor and closet communist Walter Cronkite, lied to the American public and reported the US victory as a communist victory, much to the delight of their cohorts in Russia, China and North Vietnam. The American media by that point had progressed from mind-numbing ignorance of military issues, compounded by arrogance and groundless self-importance, to open collaboration with the communists.

Cronkite even flew to Saigon and reported to America that the war in Vietnam was at a "stalemate" and "unwinnable." Incredible liar.

As a result, the late president Lyndon B. Johnson replaced the victorious American commander Gen. William Westmoreland, but nonetheless began pouring even more US troops into the country - similar to President George W. Bush's 2007-2008 "Surge" in Iraq if you will.

Prior to this point in the Vietnam War the US had not lost a single battle, and never did. The communist losses were far in excess of America's although the American media again lied to the American public, ridiculing the military's body counts. (After the war it was revealed that in addition to annihilating the Viet Cong, killing virtually all of the 75,000 guerrillas in battle, the north lost about 1.5 million troops killed in action!)

With even more troops on the ground enabling a more aggressive search and destroy methodology the scope of the communist battlefield defeats escalated and they lost entire regiments and even divisions in a series of operations launched by US forces. By the spring of 1969, especially after the communists suffered massive losses in the 9th Marines' Operation Dewey Canyon, the communist field commanders began lobbying their political bosses to surrender.

Enter Nixon's troop withdrawal announcement, at the urging of Kissinger. The communist political bosses in Hanoi immediately squashed all talk of surrender, figuring correctly that while they couldn't defeat America militarily, they did have far more backbone than America's political leaders.

Later that year Nixon announced his "Vietnamization" program by which more of the fighting would be turned over to the South Vietnamese armed forces, a tactic that worked very well for the South Koreans in the early 1950s. The Vietnamization program was again ridiculed by the American media, but in fact, it worked!

South Vietnamese forces gained strength and ability, and while taking their hits along the way, still progressed to the point that in the spring of 1972, with most Americans long gone from the battlefield, they were able to stand up to a massive communist invasion of 250,000 troops, plus huge numbers of tanks and artillery. At the end of that invasion, fought on the ground by South Vietnamese forces backed by US air power, the communists had lost an estimated 150,000 troops killed in action, plus half their armor and artillery.

The US media again reported mostly on the difficulties encountered in fighting such a huge invading force, and basically neglected to mention that it failed miserably, even worse than the Tet Offensive of 1968, and that South Vietnamese forces were victorious.

America had long been at the bargaining table with the communists in Paris, another mistake based on the fraudulent concept that the war couldn't be won and only a negotiated settlement was acceptable. Later that year when the communist negotiators began dragging their feet Nixon ordered the Christmas bombings of the north to force them back to the bargaining table.

He suspended the bombing again at the urging of his by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and as it later turned out again lost an opportunity to force the communists to surrender. In a memoir written well after the war, North Vietnam's top general said that the bombing was so effective and so demoralizing to the north that if it had continued for only two more days the communists were prepared to surrender unconditionally.

Instead, they went back to the bargaining table where they consistently outmaneuvered the American negotiators until an agreement was reached. The handful of remaining American fighting forces were withdrawn, and some of America's POWs were brought home, but half again as many were left in communist hands, to rot and die in Laotian prisons.

In June 1973 the US Congress passed the Case-Church Resolution, cutting off all aid to South Vietnam, our ally, including all medical, economic, military and humanitarian assistance.

Two years later after Nixon resigned in disgrace, and then-President Gerald Ford who openly told the northern communists via the American media that the US would not intervene if the communists again invaded South Vietnam, the rebuilt communist forces did just that. In April 1975, alone, abandoned and nearly out of bullets, the South Vietnamese government fell, setting off a communist rampage in Southeast Asia that left nearly 3 million civilians dead and millions more displaced.

And now we have Barack Hussein Obama, once again setting the stage for a premature troop withdrawal, a resurgence of extremist Muslim forces, and offering our enemies a secure haven from which to rebuild their forces and to once again attack America and our allies, if we actually have any.

We have many similarities between Vietnam and Afghanistan. Our enemies employ vicious tactics including using civilians as shields, they have sanctuaries in neighboring countries - Paah Kiss Taaan this time - Laos and Cambodia in the Vietnam war, that our troops are prevented from attacking, and the war is fought more often based on political and media considerations rather than military strategy.

As in Vietnam our government announces troop buildups and coming offensive operations in advance, giving the enemy time to adjust. We have "pundits" who obviously have no clue about real military tactics saying the war is unwinnable - exposing their abject ignorance of military subjects, yet providing "advice" that is heeded by President Obama.

In that vein I heard some Democratic "pollster" on Fox and Friends this morning saying the same thing as Cronkite - the war is "unwinnable." I didn't catch the guy's name and I really don't care who he is because he obviously is a Walter Cronkite wannabe who wants to go down in history as the man who convinced Obama to lose Afghanistan.

Yet we still are winning.

So-called experts are now arguing over what is the correct number of troops to bring home. That is irrelevant!

The issue is that by announcing an intention to disengage, Obama - who is doing this for political reasons just as Nixon did - is signaling a weakness in our political willpower. He is giving hope where there should be unrelenting, ceaseless attacks that kill and demoralize the enemy force, nothing less.

The war in Afghanistan is being won just as the war in Vietnam was being won. But once again the media is reporting it as being lost or at least unwinnable.

But consider this my media acquaintances - eventually, historians are going to realize that the American media was complicit in the deaths of some 3,000,000 southeast Asians slaughtered by the communists after the fall of Saigon, Phnom Penh and Vientiane, and those who took part will be forever branded as traitors to humanity.

And eventually, a withdrawal from Afghanistan when we are on the cusp of victory - military commanders on the ground there say they need about two years to wrap it up - will result in a resurgence of the same kind of extremism that was exhibited by the communists in the mid- to late-1970s. So my question to the American media is: do you really want this for your legacy? Is this how you want to be remembered?

As the next generation of propagandists who encouraged the slaughter of untold numbers of innocents - again? Think it over.

Connecticut Loses Another Son; Please Support the Troops

2011-06-16T13:20:00.004-04:00

I generally don't write a separate column when we learn that a member of the Armed Forces from my state dies in combat because the ultimate goal of my columns - besides needling politicians - is to inform and give readers a sample of my writing style. Thus I don't want to create the appearance of commercialism when we lose another warrior in the ongoing War on Terror.

But for three years now I have been teaming up with other bloggers in Connecticut - most notably radio talk show host Jim Vicevich who precedes Rush Limbaugh on WTIC-1080 at 9 a.m. weekdays - to convince readers to send care packages to the troops overseas. This year the date on which I intended to deliver my annual "Support the Troops" message coincided with the news that Connecticut has lost another soldier.

My fellow bloggers and I participate in the blog competition in conjunction with an annual Internet Troopathon run by Move America Forward, the nation's largest pro-troop organization. The Troopathon this year will be held on June 23 and our blogathon competition has been underway since last month.

Three years ago, our team - The Greyhawks, named after the call sign that was assigned to Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron (HMM)161 - came in second place against some stiff competition. I served in 161 in Vietnam, it was the first helicopter squadron to carry troops into battle in Korea, and it also served with distinction in the Gulf War and the ongoing War on Terror.

For more than 40 years HMM-161 flew CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters, but last year the squadron transitioned to the new V-22 Ospreys which are half helicopter-half airplane and it's designation was changed to VMM-161. The HMM designation is now part of history.

Nonetheless, the Greyhawk tradition lives on here in Connecticut. Last year the Greyhawks won the blogathon competition and this year we are in the lead again. In addition to Jim http://radioviceonline.com/ and I, the CTWatchdog.com consumer website hosted by my former Hartford Courant colleague George Gombossy also is participating.

The blogathon is a means of encouraging people to visit the MAF website - all you have to do is click on the Remember Their Sacrifice link on our websites - where you can select a care package to send to troops serving in the Middle East. The options range from a package suited to one person, which costs $30, up to enough to serve a battalion. The choice is yours, but if you are so inclined please click on the link on my website, or Jim's or George's, and do something special for the people who are most impacted by the war.

None of us, not the Greyhawk bloggers, nor Move America Forward, gets so much as a cent out of this. We do it because we know that there are people defending us every single day and night from some of the most vicious terrorists the human race has ever faced. There is little we can do for them directly because the military provides all their material support.

But we can do this. Please help us.

And please pray for the family and friends of Army Private First Class Eric Daniel Soufrine, a Woodbridge, Connecticut native who was killed in action in Afghanistan on Tuesday. I offer his family, friends and loved ones my most sincere, deepest condolences.

There is little else I can offer in this time of tragedy except to say that his efforts on our behalf, and his sacrifices, as well as those of all who knew and cared for him, will never be forgotten.

Flags will fly at half-staff until he is brought home for burial, but long after they have returned to full-staff his memory will live with those of us who once walked in his shoes, and were fortunate to have returned.

As long as there are veterans of America's wars, as long as we have the capability to communicate, as long as there are days of remembrance, he will be remembered, along with all the others who also died in the service of our country.

It is our obligation to ensure that his memory, his deeds and his sacrifices will live on as long as there is a United States of America.

SAEPE EXPERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATRES AETERNI
"Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever"

Let's See The Pit Bull Behind the Lipstick! Note to Weiner - Keep It In Your Pants!

2011-06-09T08:55:00.010-04:00

Aware Americans have been talking for decades about the "dumbing down" of the public school system, with curricula focused on the slowest students in each class to ensure that no one ever fails - thus drawing the entire system into a black hole of underachievement.

Now we find that one reason the media gives only passing notice to this travesty is because many American "traditional journalists" are so blindingly stupid, or at least terribly unschooled, that they probably don't know what constitutes a real education.

I say this because of the reprehensible actions of the vast majority of media outlets and personalities last week when Sarah Palin made an appearance in Boston. She said that when Paul Revere of Revolutionary War fame rode out to warn the colonists that the British were coming, he also warned the British that the colonists were gathering to kick their red-coated butts back to England.

AAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAA! went the collective American Terrorist Media. WE HAVE YOU NOW!

WHAT A STUPID THING PALIN SAID THIS TIME! WHAT A STUPID BROAD SHE IS! WE TOLD YOU SO! WE SAID SHE WAS A NINCOMPOOP! WE SAID SHE HAD NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER OFFICE! WHAT A JERK! EVERYONE KNOWS PAUL REVERE WARNED THE COLONISTS NOT THE BRITISH. SEE? SEE? SEE? WE TOLD YOU!!!

Unfortunately someone should have told Paul Revere what the media would say about his ride some 236 years later. Revere was one of three patriots who rode that night, the others being William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott. History states that all three were arrested by the British but Prescott and Dawes quickly escaped while Revere was held and interrogated before being released.

Revere said in his later writings that he warned the British troops that they better let him go because they were about to be squished. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.

A transcript of a letter from Revere to his friend Jeremey Belknap in 1798 describing his ride that night which can be found online at http://www.masshist.org/ says:

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from, & what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.

Note to the media - I left the segment above as I found it online for authenticity purposes so don't get all over the spelling and grammar errors. They aren't mine. Dumbasses.

So, um, where are the apologies? There ARE apologies aren't there? Apologies to Sarah Palin, apologies to the readers and viewers of the various outlets that were subjected to a media fraud, and especially apologies to all of the schoolchildren across America who were so horribly misinformed by this propaganda onslaught.

We also need apologies from the so-called late night entertainers who attempted to hack Palin to pieces over her alleged faux pas. Let's start with Jay Leno, who showed himself to be vicious as well as ignorant.

I've always thought of Leno as somewhat of a bumbling jerk who has lots of money and collects classic automobiles because he had the good fortune to inherit the late night audience that the late Johnny Carson spent decades building, and the good sense not to screw up Carson's efforts.

But Leno really showed his true character when he went on a rant against Palin, commenting that New Yorkers should have someone ride to warn them the next time she is coming to town. How about a warning pasted across the TV screens stating that Leno is an arrogant, uneducated, stiflingly self-absorbed jack wagon whose commentary is dangerous to the mental health of unsuspecting viewers?

Leno should apologize as should that perverted jerk Letterman - I don't know what he may have said because I haven't watched his pathetic efforts at humor since the revelations about his relationships with staffers, and his vicious sexual comments about Palin's then 14-year-old daughter. But he should apologize before he starts each show just because he's such an ass.

Oh yeah, that dimwit Imus should apologize too - partly for even being alive, but specifically for his running attacks on Palin in which he repeatedly characterizes her as stupid. Imagine that - a man who has to stand on the shoulders of his extensive staff every day just to give the impression that he has a double-digit IQ calling someone else stupid.

You know who is dumber than these media stooges? Their audiences! Think about it - these jackasses go out in print or on the airwaves every day making some of the dumbest commentaries in recorded history and they have a ready supply of fawning sycophants at hand to laugh on cue. What dipsticks!

I watched Sarah Palin on Fox News Sunday last weekend and even Chris Wallace gave the distinct impression that he thought she was full of it. She didn't back down though - and ended the segment with the comment "I know my American history."

Apparently Wallace didn't and obviously many alleged "journalists" on the national scene don't either. And these people have the temerity to want to tell us who we should vote for - in the primaries and for president - and actually think we're the "lower class."

But Sarah Palin won't get the apologies she deserves and we won't either because of the aforementioned media arrogance. Why do you think they are carrying on about that sick freak of a Democratic New York Congressman Anthony Weiner's disclosures that he has Internet sex with women he doesn't know and sends them x-rated photos of his privates?

Do you honestly think members of the American Terrorist Media would be making such a big deal of a Democrat's perverted behavior if they weren't trying to divert attention away from their insufferable ignorance over the Paul Revere-Sarah Palin story?

This is cover your ass time for the media and Weiner, sick bastard that he is, has now discovered what it means to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thrown under the bus he is, and he deserves it. Personally, I think freaks like him ought to be in sideshows, not the US Congress where his mere presence, among so many others like him, is a primary cause of the decline of the United States of America.

But the media would give him a pass in a heartbeat if there weren't so many people scrambling to distance themselves from their reprehensible performances on Palin.

I think Palin may have set these people up on purpose, knowing as she does that they are biased, unprofessional and make their living lying to the American public.

Whoa! Did you feel that? I did! I mean, I was writing about all the slimeballs in Congress and the media and started to feel as though I was neck deep in a settling tank at a sewage treatment plant.

Then I switched back to Sarah Palin and it was like walking into a cool shower and watching all that slime wash right down the drain. I like that analogy. Congress and the media = sewage.

Sarah Palin = cool, clean shower. Yeah. That works.

If I have one criticism of Sarah Palin - and I discussed this at length with my son who is an expert on these things - it's that she didn't call the media out more aggressively for so obviously trying to sabotage everything she does. I mean, we have a president in the White House who can't do simple math in his head and thinks the US has 57 states!

Here's a couple more examples of Obama's "special" relationship with the media: 2008: Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team. 2011: I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden.

2008: Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial. 2011: I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden.

2008: Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated. 2011: Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden.

But does he ever get hammered by the media? NO!

My son says he has seen enough of Sarah Palin's lipstick and now he wants to see the pit bull behind it. I agree. Enough of the nice girl nonsense. If you want to be president the country wants to know that you can take off the velvet glove and use the iron fist on occasion.

How about the first punch going right onto Jay Leno's massive glass jaw? I'll bet Palin could kick his ass in one round.