As a kid, I did not know the state of Minnesota was so screwed up. I was content watching Fran Tarkenton with only Bill Brown and momentum on his side, stage comeback after comeback with only a minute or two remaining, only to see Green Bay or Chicago stroll down the field in a few seconds to defeat the Vikings. Norm Van Brocklyn football was the dirtiest form found in either league, and the huge number of penalties levied was proof that everyone knew it, yet I rooted the team named after my ancestors unflinchingly.
When Bud Grant came along with Joe Kapp in tow, everything changed. The Vikings cleaned up their game, drafted well, began trouncing the traditional bullies, and became the team everyone would choose to have escort them down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood. The only drawback was that referees still treated Minnesota as a dirty team even though they had become the cleanest in football and Norm Van Brocklyn was little more than a memory. The Vikings went to four Superbowls during their heyday and should have gone to a fifth, but back then, officials never let anything get in the way of America's team(Dallas Cowboys)and the big game.
By the time the championship game with Dallas came along, I figure I was alone among Vikings fans, wanting them to go to the Superbowl and lose it again. Back then I had concluded that the world would end before another team went five times without a victory, thus firmly establishing the Vikings in history. Even with the loss to Dallas, I thought there was little chance that any team would go four times without a victory even if the world does not end in 2012(thanks alot Broncos and Bills). Basically, the Vikings viewed each of their Superbowls as just another game, much like Democrats view the Constitution as just another piece of paper. Of course, being out-coached all four games was a factor as well.
This past season was a bit different. To hell with history, go to the Superbowl and win it, I thought, but this was not to be. Clearly, untold millions more will be wagered on the Saints/Colts game than would have come in on a Vikings/Colts game even if you don't count the millions of dollars that will be wagered by those who scammed FEMA following Katrina. And no telling how many people who could no more find Louisiana on a map than stand on their heads and spit rubber nickles will be risking future lottery winnings on the Saints.
I've supplied you with all of my past feeble-minded rationalizations so you can bear witness to what I hope will be my last. While I did not condemn Minnesota for electing Jesse Ventura, a man who clearly did a good job hiding his manic tendencies during his campaign for governor, but electing Al Franken, give me a #^$*ing break! While I'm confident that Franken actually lost by three to five hundred votes(a margin that no democrat hadn't the power to defraud) the fact that Franken received more than a few thousand votes from those that regularly call Minnesota asylums home, is unimaginable. So, because of this, I contend that the State of Minnesota did not deserve to have the better team win in New Orleans.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
IT IS IRRATIONAL TO GIVE OBAMA THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
This country has arguably had great presidents, good presidents, okay presidents, lousy presidents, down right crappy presidents, and the only thing I can say for sure is that if you ask 100 different people to make a list placing our presidents in one of these five groups, you will get 110 different results. There is another category of president however, which has thankfully been without a single member throughout America's history, until now. This new category, entirely because of President Obama, is 'Would be Dictator'.
Candidate Obama, despite the cowardly rhetoric of Republicans, claiming he was merely an unknown commodity rather than a man of obvious Marxist aspirations for America, repeatedly made his vision for America clear while campaigning. Obama constantly voiced his feelings on wealth redistribution, that capitalism is fatally flawed, that government control of all aspects of life is essential for a functioning society, and that he was more than prepared to bypass all obstacles with executive orders. In the presence of all these minor clues, I was made sick to my stomach when supposed guardians of freedom, cried out in the face of Obama's attack on Joe the Plumber as if Obama had finally, for the first time, revealed his true colors.
Clearly, the campaign was not enough for a majority of American voters to see the painfully obvious, but how anyone could ignore nearly everyone Obama surrounded himself with before and after being elected president, and his approach to governing is beyond belief. Hereto I was sickened by those who claim to be watchdogs for freedom, when they only criticized Obama for such poor vetting of those he placed in his administration. Inferior vetting had nothing to do with Obama's outrageous nominations, he unquestionably knew everything about everyone he brought into his fold and was not once taken-a-back by any of their radical views because they are views he obviously shares.
The progressive elitist movement permeates both parties in this country with the Republicans behaving like the older sister constantly trying to persuade her younger brother(the Democrats) to calm down and not blow it by being too impatient. The Republicans know they have a good thing going and all will come to those who wait but they can't seem to convince the Democrats that the one thing that could screw up all their plans is to have the liberals alert the imbeciles(the general public) to the devouring of their Constitutional rights. President Obama's State of the Union Address attack upon the Supreme Court best demonstrates this impatience of the left and their pervasive need to seize immediate control. However, what I found most amusing was the theatrical outrage from Republicans. While they rightly pointed out that Obama's constitutional analysis was laughably baseless, Republican horror was largely the result of them thinking that Obama's errant rant would inspire more people to actually read the Constitution. I'm afraid that the Judge Robert Bork nomination hearings might have been the death cry for our Constitution with Democrats horrified at the prospect that someone could end up on the Supreme Court that was actually aware of the Constitutional House of Cards liberals had constructed. And, if there is any doubt to Republican complicity, think back to how incredibly inept, unenthusiastic, and hermaphroditic Republican defense of Judge Bork was during the confirmation hearing.
Today there is a cry that the Republican Party should embrace the Tea Party movement in order to halt the deformation of our Republic, but this they will never do. I therefore recommend that Americans engage in a little old fashioned usury of their own and support Republicans as long as they are actively working to politically neuter President Obama, then vote them out of office as well. For I truly fear that if Americans don't cleanse Washington D.C, we are perilously close to having elections identical to Cuba and Venezuela, where candidates win with 100% or more of the vote.
Candidate Obama, despite the cowardly rhetoric of Republicans, claiming he was merely an unknown commodity rather than a man of obvious Marxist aspirations for America, repeatedly made his vision for America clear while campaigning. Obama constantly voiced his feelings on wealth redistribution, that capitalism is fatally flawed, that government control of all aspects of life is essential for a functioning society, and that he was more than prepared to bypass all obstacles with executive orders. In the presence of all these minor clues, I was made sick to my stomach when supposed guardians of freedom, cried out in the face of Obama's attack on Joe the Plumber as if Obama had finally, for the first time, revealed his true colors.
Clearly, the campaign was not enough for a majority of American voters to see the painfully obvious, but how anyone could ignore nearly everyone Obama surrounded himself with before and after being elected president, and his approach to governing is beyond belief. Hereto I was sickened by those who claim to be watchdogs for freedom, when they only criticized Obama for such poor vetting of those he placed in his administration. Inferior vetting had nothing to do with Obama's outrageous nominations, he unquestionably knew everything about everyone he brought into his fold and was not once taken-a-back by any of their radical views because they are views he obviously shares.
The progressive elitist movement permeates both parties in this country with the Republicans behaving like the older sister constantly trying to persuade her younger brother(the Democrats) to calm down and not blow it by being too impatient. The Republicans know they have a good thing going and all will come to those who wait but they can't seem to convince the Democrats that the one thing that could screw up all their plans is to have the liberals alert the imbeciles(the general public) to the devouring of their Constitutional rights. President Obama's State of the Union Address attack upon the Supreme Court best demonstrates this impatience of the left and their pervasive need to seize immediate control. However, what I found most amusing was the theatrical outrage from Republicans. While they rightly pointed out that Obama's constitutional analysis was laughably baseless, Republican horror was largely the result of them thinking that Obama's errant rant would inspire more people to actually read the Constitution. I'm afraid that the Judge Robert Bork nomination hearings might have been the death cry for our Constitution with Democrats horrified at the prospect that someone could end up on the Supreme Court that was actually aware of the Constitutional House of Cards liberals had constructed. And, if there is any doubt to Republican complicity, think back to how incredibly inept, unenthusiastic, and hermaphroditic Republican defense of Judge Bork was during the confirmation hearing.
Today there is a cry that the Republican Party should embrace the Tea Party movement in order to halt the deformation of our Republic, but this they will never do. I therefore recommend that Americans engage in a little old fashioned usury of their own and support Republicans as long as they are actively working to politically neuter President Obama, then vote them out of office as well. For I truly fear that if Americans don't cleanse Washington D.C, we are perilously close to having elections identical to Cuba and Venezuela, where candidates win with 100% or more of the vote.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
OBAMA: POSITIVE HE CAN FOOL ENOUGH PEOPLE ALL THE TIME
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. George Bush had difficulty reciting this old saying, inadvertently reversing it once (to my recollection). President Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have to keep this old saying straight in his mind because he has his own personal variation: Not only can I fool them once, I can fool them time and time again. President Obama's State of the Union Address was, in my opinion, the best speech he has ever given. It was clearly an improvement upon his campaign speeches, yet eerily packed full of the same rhetoric and promises. He promised to put a halt to earmarks and insisted that earmarks be posted on the Internet before any vote in Congress. Aside from the blatant inconsistency of this promise, Obama is counting on people to have forgotten that he claimed his stimulus bill had no earmarks, while a conservative count measured over 9,000 earmarks within the bill, and as to transparency, he promised that any health care bill would be posted on the Internet for all to see before any vote. I personally felt the liberal destruction of education was complete, but how it must have annoyed President Obama to have to promise to a re-commitment to total destruction of education since the election in Massachusetts clearly indicated that their job was not yet finished. He proposed increased tax incentives for higher education, but I fear that could easily apply only to fields approved by the Obama administration. He again promised to 'look into' clean coal, bio fuels, nuclear energy, and oil and gas production. This was identical to promises made during the campaign, and the result was no incentives, much less any lifting of barriers, making it virtually impossible for a nuclear plant to get off the drawing board, and claimed advances in bio-fuels resulted in a tripling of the cost of produce, reduction in food exports, and proving to all but the unimaginably dense that bio-fuels are environmentally unsound. And while the lip service to clean coal technology was obscene, nothing can compare to his crowing about having opened up millions of acres for oil and gas exploration early in his presidency. Not only were the vast majority of the opened lands of unknown potential, they were in areas in which extraction would cost two to three times more than areas of well established reserves.
Perhaps the most grotesque component of President Obama's spewings was an announced freeze in government spending after 2010. Obama claiming this was a commitment to fiscal responsibility would be laughable if the freeze were enacted today. Not only have most government budgets increased by nearly 20 percent in 09', Obama gives congress a whole additional year to pad budgets before the freeze. Logically, this will result in a significant increase in spending more than if there were no freeze at all.
Finally, Obama's commitment to clean up the status quo in Washington is worse than comical. Even though one could argue that JFK brought Chicago politics into the 1960 election, it took Obama to bring Chicago politics to the White House.
Perhaps the most grotesque component of President Obama's spewings was an announced freeze in government spending after 2010. Obama claiming this was a commitment to fiscal responsibility would be laughable if the freeze were enacted today. Not only have most government budgets increased by nearly 20 percent in 09', Obama gives congress a whole additional year to pad budgets before the freeze. Logically, this will result in a significant increase in spending more than if there were no freeze at all.
Finally, Obama's commitment to clean up the status quo in Washington is worse than comical. Even though one could argue that JFK brought Chicago politics into the 1960 election, it took Obama to bring Chicago politics to the White House.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA ARMY
Because I have always held that membership in any group mandates your first obligation to be the maintenance of that groups' integrity, I feel compelled to address a smattering of conservative standard bearers and deserters from the left that God has been gracious to. After all, who would you rather hear from, Keith Olberman, a reincarnated propagandist for TASS and his trusted earwig-infested female side-kick Ms. Maddow, who doesn't even have the excuse of having been an abuser of LSD in the 60's, or a devote Conservative that firmly believes in the premise that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, being life, liberty, and pursuit of having one of their own rip them a new one.
ANNE COULTER
Anne Coulter is definitely not a victim of the no child left behind syndrome. She doesn't feel the slightest compulsion to teach the conceptually challenged. Her attitude and I must admit to finding it refreshing, is to state realities and absolutes, and anyone that is slow to concur, doesn't have what it takes to join her ranks. Ms. Coulter does not want her army to be slowed by having to stop and nurse anyone that hesitated and thus was impaled while negotiating a conceptual fence. I'm uncertain if Ms. Coulter could be properly called the movement's General Patton, but I'm sure she qualifies as the campaign's equivalent to General Custer. Surly a lifetime could be spent debating whether Custer's overall impact was positive or negative, but no one could argue that anyone in his presence didn't know they were in the presence of a somebody, and that he had his uses. I do feel, however, that her manner permits the left to control or at least define her image to an unhealthy degree. But sadly, I'm ignorant of any solution to this that would not interfere with Ms. Coulter remaining Ms. Coulter.
BERNIE GOLDBERG
Bernie Goldberg's evolution of anger is most fascinating to observe. I find it somewhat reminiscent of my father's building fury in the face of so many incapable or unwilling, to the see the so obvious. He is on a path of public good, but his living to witness that impact may be precluded by a coronary embolism. I do find his frustration with the public's inability to grasp the leftist media's agenda slightly hypocritical since it took him so long to become aware of it himself, and if he was not slow to identify it, he is even more culpable and worthy of reproach, for having taken so long to find the courage to lend his hand in exposing that media bias he now holds in such disdain. But aside from any delays in his joining the struggle against the death of the individual, he brings a unique background, perspective, and equally unique weaponry. Consequently, a fair argument can be made that if Mr. Goldberg became more of a player than a coach, the left would fear him most of all.
MARK LEVIN
My assessment of Mark Levin unfortunately reveals a sever personal failing of my own. He bombards his audience with more information than any three hosts combined. That information is well researched, perfectly sequenced, and convincingly presented. Unquestionably, his arguments are well processed and ready for immediate human digestion, so never does he leave the listener feeling bloated. I respect beyond words his insistence that the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence have lifetime memberships in his arguments. I just can't get past the voice. This is my problem not his.
GLEN BECK
I don't buy Glen Beck's assertion that he is slow on the uptake and just a regular guy, but I do find his approach to be the most potentially likely of success, or measurable positive impact. He seems to have discovered the perfect mixture of passion, sincerity, and theater. Another very appealing and rare characteristic Mr. Beck seems to possess, is that he doesn't appear to care how long it takes to bring Americas back from the brink. There is no way to overstate the importance of having people that can successfully combat growing weary amidst a battle of indeterminate duration. As a matter of fact, the only thing I could see getting in the way of Mr. Beck would be if he contracted elephantiasis of the ego from Bill O'Reilly.
BILL O'REILLY
Speaking of Mr. O'Reilly, I personally don't believe he even belongs on this list but since so many of his assailants do, I include him. I'm afraid the fact that he has never aired any of my emails, all of which being superior than any he has used, may prejudice my opinion. Just the same, I find his selection of topics and issues he chooses to champion to be well thought out, worthy of attention, and intelligently addressed. However, I do see his sincerity and displayed passion to be contrived, artificial, and as phony as a Virgin Mary sighting at the Mustang Ranch. He is far and away the most deserving of the title, 'entertainer'. Were an ego something actually capable of physically exploding, I would nightly expect blood and shredded ego tissue to be hurled violently at the screen. Whether Fox News would immediately go to commercial, or keep the cameras rolling, I do not know. If anyone doubts my assessment of his ego, ask yourself, is having intellectually bested the likes of Barney Frank really something to write home about, much less put on a bumper sticker? Realistically, emerging victorious from a battle of wits with Barney Frank is about as noteworthy as getting the better of Al Gore or Joe Biden on the history of the Internet or television, or knowing more about everything than Chris Dodd.
MICHELLE MALKIN
No one in the media is as capable of employing such a gentle, polite, palatable tone while presenting matter of fact, which is anything but gentle, polite, or palatable than Michelle Malkin. But this tact, which melds with her outward appearance, is but a ruse to lure her prey into range. Once coaxed into her sights, her petite physical stature belies the immense nuclear powered thrust by which she can propel her message. She is an air hammer loaded with facts rather than roofing nails. It is no coincidence that those willing to debate her number zero. Any liberal that crosses her path looks like the proverbial idiot that brings an emery board to a gunfight. While a handful of pseudo-advocates will still occasionally spew out intentionally ineffective dribblings against illegal immigration, Ms. Malkin is the only true warrior against America's ongoing genocide. So well armed are her positions, that she can't even discuss them on Fox News without Geraldo Rivera getting his big brother, Billy, to beat her up for him. However Big Brother Billy wanted none of her so he sunk to a level lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut, and underhandedly did everything he could to limit her airtime. Or so I've surmised. With liberal weaponry being loaded only with feelings(blanks), and the left being pledged irreversibly to harming this country, I have absolutely no sympathy for any of them that stray into the raking fire delivered by Ms. Malkin's arsenal loaded with lethal facts.
MRS. JAMES CARVILLE
Mrs. James Carville comes across as rational, pleasantly analytical, and persuasive, but always there looms the Satan-like shadow of her husband. Or is that, cadaver-like shadow? I just can't bring myself to trust someone who seems to have entered the holy state of matrimony for the sole purpose of guaranteeing that at least one would always be gainfully employed. Heck, even Bill and Hillarys' marital contract clearly displayed a unity of mind and purpose, and I refuse to abandon my contention that the most important element of a successful, meaningful, caring bond, is not a sense of humor, respect, trust, or even love, but an identical sense of right and wrong. And if they do share a like sense of right and wrong, that sense is unsavory and mercenary at best. I can't clear my mind of images of Mr. and Mrs. Carville lying down at night, gleefully disputing which one moved more spaces that day on the 'game board' of American politics.
DICK MORRIS
As a prognosticator, no one can hold a candle to Dick Morris. I end up agreeing with him on a more consistent basis than any other commentator, with the possible exception of Laura Ingram, and it bugs the crap out of me. Here is a man, regardless of any recent self-reformative efforts, looking at politics as much or more of a game than do the Carvilles, and probably would have come up with the idea for O.J. Simpson not to take his arthritis medicine, in preparation of trying on the gloves, before anyone else did, were he on the 'dream team'. It pains me that I agree with someone so much whom I do not trust, nor even like as a person. Because of this conundrum, Mr. Morris is the one person I discuss, that I would most like to meet face to face.
DENNIS MILLER
My appreciation for Dennis Miller is probably firmly rooted in self approval. Like myself, he is genetically wired to the one liner and never ending searches for the obscure metaphor to arrogantly test his audience. I realize that aspiring to Mr. Miller's skill level is sort of like Arnold Schwazenegger thinking he could turn himself into a flabby, unauthentic, political milksop. Ah, hope springs eternal. Someday I wish to be certain enough of my own gifts so as to be able to either challenge Mr. Miller's crown or concede to his unapproachable mastery, abandon my pursuit of his throne, and graciously relinquish the field unbloodied.
LAURA INGRAM
Only one thing prevents me from identifying Laura Ingram as my favorite. Her argument formulation and structure, as well as her, manner, delivery, mirror my own.(almost) However, I can't rid myself of the feeling that she has weakened and may secretly view the war already lost, and like an unmanned, computer driven weapon, she robotic ally fights on. This is, without a doubt, the one suspicion I would most like to be dead wrong about.
MICHEAL SAVAGE
Whether I enjoyed Michael Savage's program was solely dependent upon my mood at the time. He seemed to turn my otherwise logic-dedicated mind into a gob of goo, reacting almost entirely on an emotional level. I would always have to turn him off, and wait fifteen or twenty minutes for my analytical powers to escape from the Savage correctional and nostril hair grooming facility. Only then could I reliably assess anything he said. As you may have already gathered, I no longer listen to Mr. Savage. The last straw was when I heard him call Greta Van Susteren, "scar face". This evil, hateful, subhuman, completely un-Christian act, reveling in the misfortune of another, leads me to believe, if you'll pardon the obvious oxymoronic component of the advice, that Mr. Savage should spend his every waking moment praying there is no God. By the way, in case no one else noticed, Greta has gone from an entrenched liberal to quite the little pragmatist.
PAT BUCHANAN
Pat Buchanan was for many years my pick for 'Deep Throat'. But how can you totally condemn someone who diverted so many illiterate voters from Al Gore in the Florida 2000' presidential race. In his book, "Death of the West", he clearly sees the impending devolution of America to a third world country. His only mistake being: foretelling an unrealistically lengthy amount of time for this metastasis. Sadly, for whatever reason, perhaps past election rejections, I sense he has become one of those willing to sit back and watch the death of America, just so he can say, "I told you so".
NEWT GANGRICH
As for Newt Gangrich, no single individual I discuss here has caused me to see-saw so wildly and often as this man. At long last, Newt has managed to single-handedly prove to me that there is absolutely no direct correlation between intelligence and courage. Grievously, I was too dense when Henry Kissinger tried to teach me the same lesson years ago. No doubt Newt could kick my ass on any quiz show, but his line about going to Washington to change it, and it changed him is clever and revealing, is only half right. It exposes many things, none of which are wise or noble. The comment does confirm that he believes that anyone that goes to Washington, DC, no matter how honorable, will be perverted. If his contention is accurate, no one that has gone to Washington, DC, in the last thirty years or more should ever have been sent there in the first place, and the American people should reanimate Thomas Jefferson, and revolt. Newt's words clearly state that the corruption of our government is so all pervasive that is cannot be changed from within. Whether there is enough honorable people left in this country to re-staff Washington, DC, remains to be seen, but the fact remains that everyone currently in Washington, is nothing but a pestilence upon our Constitution. I wish Newt had the courage, integrity, and devotion to this country, to couple his intellect, with an awareness that doing right is more important than just being right.
SEAN HANNITY
Unquestionably, the last thing President Obama wants to do is go have a beer with Sean Hannity. I, however, like the guy, and would love to pounce on a shot or two of Scotch with him except for one thing, I'm not sure he has reached legal drinking age. Sean looks at everything through the eyes of a child. While this can often be a good thing, as Jesus claimed, but when trying to make a point with an elusive leftist, the I double-dog dare-ya routine just doesn't cut it. I think my biggest problem with Sean is that he can't get off Reagan. Despite Reagan being the only Presidential candidate I truly voted for, this country needs much more than a second coming of Ronald Reagan. Reagan was too easily talked out of good ideas by cowards poorly disguised as political pragmatists. What this country needs is someone just as firmly rooted or more so, in principle, and less susceptible to the voices advocating dilution of those principles for the sake of expediency and promoting methodologies that violate those principles. Since even the most optimistic doubt a second coming, I am not lost to the reality that what I think is needed for this country is even more of a pie in the sky.
CARL ROVE
Debating as to whether Mr. Rove is an analyst or a commentator is a bigger waste of time than arguing whether or not Underdog could beat up Mighty Mouse. The fact that Mr. Rove does allot of smiling when he speaks of the idiocies spewing forth from liberals does not invalidate his accuracy. And when he points out, as many others have, including myself, that the only transparency liberals and the Obama administration exhibit is revealing their own corruption,(plain at least to anyone with more than three functioning brain cells) the delight that shows in his face can be interpreted as honest and justified. Personally, I prefer someone with a slight poker face to someone like Walter Cronkite who for decades successfully passed himself off as an objective reporter, covertly injecting his ultra-left beliefs into his comments. I do wish Sean Hannity would stop feeding Mr. Rove ego growth hormones every time he introduces him, always calling Mr. Rove 'the architect' is getting nauseating.
At the epicenter of my motives for writing these brief blurbs lies a desire to inspire people to listen to these personalities and make up their own minds, especially since I perceive their own minds to be in jeopardy of becoming no longer their own. If independent thought was not in danger, how is it we just acquiesced to the government spending, in 2009 alone, the equivalent of spending over sixty cents a day, for every day the Universe itself is theorized to have existed? If only Republicans could see that if they simply held to the Constitution and the values therein, leftist would never be a concern of notoriety or consequence. Republicans risk extinction if they wander into the Labrea Tar Pits of political strategy founded in corrupt manipulation. Both Socialism and Communism are deeply mired and at home in this pit and Republicans must resist stumbling into this corrupt, unethical quagmire to avoid being fossilized. Apathy and ignorance can, and perhaps already has reached a fatal level in this country, but how scurrilous it would be if we let America go calmly into the night of human failures.
ANNE COULTER
Anne Coulter is definitely not a victim of the no child left behind syndrome. She doesn't feel the slightest compulsion to teach the conceptually challenged. Her attitude and I must admit to finding it refreshing, is to state realities and absolutes, and anyone that is slow to concur, doesn't have what it takes to join her ranks. Ms. Coulter does not want her army to be slowed by having to stop and nurse anyone that hesitated and thus was impaled while negotiating a conceptual fence. I'm uncertain if Ms. Coulter could be properly called the movement's General Patton, but I'm sure she qualifies as the campaign's equivalent to General Custer. Surly a lifetime could be spent debating whether Custer's overall impact was positive or negative, but no one could argue that anyone in his presence didn't know they were in the presence of a somebody, and that he had his uses. I do feel, however, that her manner permits the left to control or at least define her image to an unhealthy degree. But sadly, I'm ignorant of any solution to this that would not interfere with Ms. Coulter remaining Ms. Coulter.
BERNIE GOLDBERG
Bernie Goldberg's evolution of anger is most fascinating to observe. I find it somewhat reminiscent of my father's building fury in the face of so many incapable or unwilling, to the see the so obvious. He is on a path of public good, but his living to witness that impact may be precluded by a coronary embolism. I do find his frustration with the public's inability to grasp the leftist media's agenda slightly hypocritical since it took him so long to become aware of it himself, and if he was not slow to identify it, he is even more culpable and worthy of reproach, for having taken so long to find the courage to lend his hand in exposing that media bias he now holds in such disdain. But aside from any delays in his joining the struggle against the death of the individual, he brings a unique background, perspective, and equally unique weaponry. Consequently, a fair argument can be made that if Mr. Goldberg became more of a player than a coach, the left would fear him most of all.
MARK LEVIN
My assessment of Mark Levin unfortunately reveals a sever personal failing of my own. He bombards his audience with more information than any three hosts combined. That information is well researched, perfectly sequenced, and convincingly presented. Unquestionably, his arguments are well processed and ready for immediate human digestion, so never does he leave the listener feeling bloated. I respect beyond words his insistence that the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence have lifetime memberships in his arguments. I just can't get past the voice. This is my problem not his.
GLEN BECK
I don't buy Glen Beck's assertion that he is slow on the uptake and just a regular guy, but I do find his approach to be the most potentially likely of success, or measurable positive impact. He seems to have discovered the perfect mixture of passion, sincerity, and theater. Another very appealing and rare characteristic Mr. Beck seems to possess, is that he doesn't appear to care how long it takes to bring Americas back from the brink. There is no way to overstate the importance of having people that can successfully combat growing weary amidst a battle of indeterminate duration. As a matter of fact, the only thing I could see getting in the way of Mr. Beck would be if he contracted elephantiasis of the ego from Bill O'Reilly.
BILL O'REILLY
Speaking of Mr. O'Reilly, I personally don't believe he even belongs on this list but since so many of his assailants do, I include him. I'm afraid the fact that he has never aired any of my emails, all of which being superior than any he has used, may prejudice my opinion. Just the same, I find his selection of topics and issues he chooses to champion to be well thought out, worthy of attention, and intelligently addressed. However, I do see his sincerity and displayed passion to be contrived, artificial, and as phony as a Virgin Mary sighting at the Mustang Ranch. He is far and away the most deserving of the title, 'entertainer'. Were an ego something actually capable of physically exploding, I would nightly expect blood and shredded ego tissue to be hurled violently at the screen. Whether Fox News would immediately go to commercial, or keep the cameras rolling, I do not know. If anyone doubts my assessment of his ego, ask yourself, is having intellectually bested the likes of Barney Frank really something to write home about, much less put on a bumper sticker? Realistically, emerging victorious from a battle of wits with Barney Frank is about as noteworthy as getting the better of Al Gore or Joe Biden on the history of the Internet or television, or knowing more about everything than Chris Dodd.
MICHELLE MALKIN
No one in the media is as capable of employing such a gentle, polite, palatable tone while presenting matter of fact, which is anything but gentle, polite, or palatable than Michelle Malkin. But this tact, which melds with her outward appearance, is but a ruse to lure her prey into range. Once coaxed into her sights, her petite physical stature belies the immense nuclear powered thrust by which she can propel her message. She is an air hammer loaded with facts rather than roofing nails. It is no coincidence that those willing to debate her number zero. Any liberal that crosses her path looks like the proverbial idiot that brings an emery board to a gunfight. While a handful of pseudo-advocates will still occasionally spew out intentionally ineffective dribblings against illegal immigration, Ms. Malkin is the only true warrior against America's ongoing genocide. So well armed are her positions, that she can't even discuss them on Fox News without Geraldo Rivera getting his big brother, Billy, to beat her up for him. However Big Brother Billy wanted none of her so he sunk to a level lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut, and underhandedly did everything he could to limit her airtime. Or so I've surmised. With liberal weaponry being loaded only with feelings(blanks), and the left being pledged irreversibly to harming this country, I have absolutely no sympathy for any of them that stray into the raking fire delivered by Ms. Malkin's arsenal loaded with lethal facts.
MRS. JAMES CARVILLE
Mrs. James Carville comes across as rational, pleasantly analytical, and persuasive, but always there looms the Satan-like shadow of her husband. Or is that, cadaver-like shadow? I just can't bring myself to trust someone who seems to have entered the holy state of matrimony for the sole purpose of guaranteeing that at least one would always be gainfully employed. Heck, even Bill and Hillarys' marital contract clearly displayed a unity of mind and purpose, and I refuse to abandon my contention that the most important element of a successful, meaningful, caring bond, is not a sense of humor, respect, trust, or even love, but an identical sense of right and wrong. And if they do share a like sense of right and wrong, that sense is unsavory and mercenary at best. I can't clear my mind of images of Mr. and Mrs. Carville lying down at night, gleefully disputing which one moved more spaces that day on the 'game board' of American politics.
DICK MORRIS
As a prognosticator, no one can hold a candle to Dick Morris. I end up agreeing with him on a more consistent basis than any other commentator, with the possible exception of Laura Ingram, and it bugs the crap out of me. Here is a man, regardless of any recent self-reformative efforts, looking at politics as much or more of a game than do the Carvilles, and probably would have come up with the idea for O.J. Simpson not to take his arthritis medicine, in preparation of trying on the gloves, before anyone else did, were he on the 'dream team'. It pains me that I agree with someone so much whom I do not trust, nor even like as a person. Because of this conundrum, Mr. Morris is the one person I discuss, that I would most like to meet face to face.
DENNIS MILLER
My appreciation for Dennis Miller is probably firmly rooted in self approval. Like myself, he is genetically wired to the one liner and never ending searches for the obscure metaphor to arrogantly test his audience. I realize that aspiring to Mr. Miller's skill level is sort of like Arnold Schwazenegger thinking he could turn himself into a flabby, unauthentic, political milksop. Ah, hope springs eternal. Someday I wish to be certain enough of my own gifts so as to be able to either challenge Mr. Miller's crown or concede to his unapproachable mastery, abandon my pursuit of his throne, and graciously relinquish the field unbloodied.
LAURA INGRAM
Only one thing prevents me from identifying Laura Ingram as my favorite. Her argument formulation and structure, as well as her, manner, delivery, mirror my own.(almost) However, I can't rid myself of the feeling that she has weakened and may secretly view the war already lost, and like an unmanned, computer driven weapon, she robotic ally fights on. This is, without a doubt, the one suspicion I would most like to be dead wrong about.
MICHEAL SAVAGE
Whether I enjoyed Michael Savage's program was solely dependent upon my mood at the time. He seemed to turn my otherwise logic-dedicated mind into a gob of goo, reacting almost entirely on an emotional level. I would always have to turn him off, and wait fifteen or twenty minutes for my analytical powers to escape from the Savage correctional and nostril hair grooming facility. Only then could I reliably assess anything he said. As you may have already gathered, I no longer listen to Mr. Savage. The last straw was when I heard him call Greta Van Susteren, "scar face". This evil, hateful, subhuman, completely un-Christian act, reveling in the misfortune of another, leads me to believe, if you'll pardon the obvious oxymoronic component of the advice, that Mr. Savage should spend his every waking moment praying there is no God. By the way, in case no one else noticed, Greta has gone from an entrenched liberal to quite the little pragmatist.
PAT BUCHANAN
Pat Buchanan was for many years my pick for 'Deep Throat'. But how can you totally condemn someone who diverted so many illiterate voters from Al Gore in the Florida 2000' presidential race. In his book, "Death of the West", he clearly sees the impending devolution of America to a third world country. His only mistake being: foretelling an unrealistically lengthy amount of time for this metastasis. Sadly, for whatever reason, perhaps past election rejections, I sense he has become one of those willing to sit back and watch the death of America, just so he can say, "I told you so".
NEWT GANGRICH
As for Newt Gangrich, no single individual I discuss here has caused me to see-saw so wildly and often as this man. At long last, Newt has managed to single-handedly prove to me that there is absolutely no direct correlation between intelligence and courage. Grievously, I was too dense when Henry Kissinger tried to teach me the same lesson years ago. No doubt Newt could kick my ass on any quiz show, but his line about going to Washington to change it, and it changed him is clever and revealing, is only half right. It exposes many things, none of which are wise or noble. The comment does confirm that he believes that anyone that goes to Washington, DC, no matter how honorable, will be perverted. If his contention is accurate, no one that has gone to Washington, DC, in the last thirty years or more should ever have been sent there in the first place, and the American people should reanimate Thomas Jefferson, and revolt. Newt's words clearly state that the corruption of our government is so all pervasive that is cannot be changed from within. Whether there is enough honorable people left in this country to re-staff Washington, DC, remains to be seen, but the fact remains that everyone currently in Washington, is nothing but a pestilence upon our Constitution. I wish Newt had the courage, integrity, and devotion to this country, to couple his intellect, with an awareness that doing right is more important than just being right.
SEAN HANNITY
Unquestionably, the last thing President Obama wants to do is go have a beer with Sean Hannity. I, however, like the guy, and would love to pounce on a shot or two of Scotch with him except for one thing, I'm not sure he has reached legal drinking age. Sean looks at everything through the eyes of a child. While this can often be a good thing, as Jesus claimed, but when trying to make a point with an elusive leftist, the I double-dog dare-ya routine just doesn't cut it. I think my biggest problem with Sean is that he can't get off Reagan. Despite Reagan being the only Presidential candidate I truly voted for, this country needs much more than a second coming of Ronald Reagan. Reagan was too easily talked out of good ideas by cowards poorly disguised as political pragmatists. What this country needs is someone just as firmly rooted or more so, in principle, and less susceptible to the voices advocating dilution of those principles for the sake of expediency and promoting methodologies that violate those principles. Since even the most optimistic doubt a second coming, I am not lost to the reality that what I think is needed for this country is even more of a pie in the sky.
CARL ROVE
Debating as to whether Mr. Rove is an analyst or a commentator is a bigger waste of time than arguing whether or not Underdog could beat up Mighty Mouse. The fact that Mr. Rove does allot of smiling when he speaks of the idiocies spewing forth from liberals does not invalidate his accuracy. And when he points out, as many others have, including myself, that the only transparency liberals and the Obama administration exhibit is revealing their own corruption,(plain at least to anyone with more than three functioning brain cells) the delight that shows in his face can be interpreted as honest and justified. Personally, I prefer someone with a slight poker face to someone like Walter Cronkite who for decades successfully passed himself off as an objective reporter, covertly injecting his ultra-left beliefs into his comments. I do wish Sean Hannity would stop feeding Mr. Rove ego growth hormones every time he introduces him, always calling Mr. Rove 'the architect' is getting nauseating.
At the epicenter of my motives for writing these brief blurbs lies a desire to inspire people to listen to these personalities and make up their own minds, especially since I perceive their own minds to be in jeopardy of becoming no longer their own. If independent thought was not in danger, how is it we just acquiesced to the government spending, in 2009 alone, the equivalent of spending over sixty cents a day, for every day the Universe itself is theorized to have existed? If only Republicans could see that if they simply held to the Constitution and the values therein, leftist would never be a concern of notoriety or consequence. Republicans risk extinction if they wander into the Labrea Tar Pits of political strategy founded in corrupt manipulation. Both Socialism and Communism are deeply mired and at home in this pit and Republicans must resist stumbling into this corrupt, unethical quagmire to avoid being fossilized. Apathy and ignorance can, and perhaps already has reached a fatal level in this country, but how scurrilous it would be if we let America go calmly into the night of human failures.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
COAKLEY'S SPEEDY CONCESSION MUST HAVE RILED OBAMA AND HIS TROOP
Yesterday, I figured a 5% victory by Mr. Brown represented the minimum margin of victory he required to insure being certified as the winner. Of course, yesterday, I figured a 5% victory was virtually impossible. After all, we are talking about Massachusetts. However, even given my original supposition, I suspect Obama would have preferred a little more time to ponder the possible options which could impact returns in his favor. Given Obama's ferocity on the campaign trail, unconcerned with such trivialities as ethics and law, I'm sure he would have wished to have had time to leave no gravestone unturned. This pursuit was, however, largely derailed by Ms. Coakley's quick (at least for Democrats) concession.
Ms. Coakley's concession was so timely, if not possessing the customary graciousness typical of a Republican in the same situation, I immediately asked myself why? Could she be a decent and honorable person that simply misguidedly aligned herself completely with Obama's ultra-left agenda? No, came to mind as fast as if I were asked if I thought George Bush was a conservative. There is no way a fair minded person, governed by conscience could favor any legislation(Obamacare) that has such a well- documented history of lies, deception, secrecy, and bribery. So why did she do it? I've concluded that since Obama's crowd was throwing insults and criticism at her and her campaign, even before a single vote was cast, she felt Obama's lead- weighted coattails were largely responsible for her defeat and 'Team Obama's' attacks were cowardly and inappropriate. If these were her feelings, feelings I, in fact, share, she may have felt that a rapid concession would narrow Obama's options to contest the election and thus serve as a last laugh before she was sent to the 'cheap seats' next to Rev. Wright.
Regardless of 'Team Obama's' spin, this election was unquestionably a referendum on the President. Mr. Brown's positions could not have been more divergent from Obama's and Ms. Coakley's could not have been more tightly bound to Obama's agenda and methods. Democrats say that the election was merely an unfortunate result of an anti-incumbency movement overtaking the nation,(implying it is a bad thing!) but make no mistake, if Ms. Coakley had not been so heavily ballasted by the President, she would have won handily.
Ms. Coakley's concession was so timely, if not possessing the customary graciousness typical of a Republican in the same situation, I immediately asked myself why? Could she be a decent and honorable person that simply misguidedly aligned herself completely with Obama's ultra-left agenda? No, came to mind as fast as if I were asked if I thought George Bush was a conservative. There is no way a fair minded person, governed by conscience could favor any legislation(Obamacare) that has such a well- documented history of lies, deception, secrecy, and bribery. So why did she do it? I've concluded that since Obama's crowd was throwing insults and criticism at her and her campaign, even before a single vote was cast, she felt Obama's lead- weighted coattails were largely responsible for her defeat and 'Team Obama's' attacks were cowardly and inappropriate. If these were her feelings, feelings I, in fact, share, she may have felt that a rapid concession would narrow Obama's options to contest the election and thus serve as a last laugh before she was sent to the 'cheap seats' next to Rev. Wright.
Regardless of 'Team Obama's' spin, this election was unquestionably a referendum on the President. Mr. Brown's positions could not have been more divergent from Obama's and Ms. Coakley's could not have been more tightly bound to Obama's agenda and methods. Democrats say that the election was merely an unfortunate result of an anti-incumbency movement overtaking the nation,(implying it is a bad thing!) but make no mistake, if Ms. Coakley had not been so heavily ballasted by the President, she would have won handily.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
DON'T PANIC DONKEYS
Tuesday morning and Democrats are bracing for the most unbelievable, unexpected, cast iron, monkey wrench to be thrown into their excessively greased machine that was supposed to carry them all the way to their dream of complete COMMIALISM. To all the haters of capitalism, despisers of the Constitution, and those that view the Founding Fathers as despicable self-serving scum, do not despair. You must not panic or you will only make things worse for yourselves. If Mr. Brown wins in Massachusetts, and you follow your natural instincts and falsify the vote count, delay certification, or drag your feet to seat Mr. Brown, you will only reveal too much of your true selves to an electorate who is finally, at long last, looking for corruption and wanting to do something about it.
I realize I am asking the seemingly impossible of liberals and certainly something they have never exhibited before: Patience and a rudimentary grasp of history. Impatience not Republicans, has always been the self constructed obstacle to the far left agenda, and though I am certain that one can't be an honest student of history and a liberal, Democrats must dig deep and find the strength to at least trust in history. History has shown while Republicans may briefly agree to a return to their roots of fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, strong national defense, and a re-affirmation of the concept of right and wrong, it wont last for long. So, to all liberals, don't abandon ship even if Mr. Brown wins or even if there is a massive shift of power later this year, because your chance will come again and thanks to your phenomenally successful destruction of education, your elimination of a free press, and that too many Republican politicians have accepted ethical guidance from liberals, your next chance to turn the United States of America into something unrecognizable will come sooner than later.
I realize I am asking the seemingly impossible of liberals and certainly something they have never exhibited before: Patience and a rudimentary grasp of history. Impatience not Republicans, has always been the self constructed obstacle to the far left agenda, and though I am certain that one can't be an honest student of history and a liberal, Democrats must dig deep and find the strength to at least trust in history. History has shown while Republicans may briefly agree to a return to their roots of fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, strong national defense, and a re-affirmation of the concept of right and wrong, it wont last for long. So, to all liberals, don't abandon ship even if Mr. Brown wins or even if there is a massive shift of power later this year, because your chance will come again and thanks to your phenomenally successful destruction of education, your elimination of a free press, and that too many Republican politicians have accepted ethical guidance from liberals, your next chance to turn the United States of America into something unrecognizable will come sooner than later.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)