Funny that we even need to have this debate. How can the abject failure of like systems in other nations not simply be enough for any American to think that we should forego what has been proposed. The reason that Americans haven't done so is that you don't much hear of these failures. We, as conservatives do but we have our ear to the critical ground provided by our favorite pundits. However, if you are less inclined to be in the daily political debate, you are not going to hear much of these failures. You do hear much of what Obama has to say.

Before I tackle another issue or two regarding other ramification of the proposal. In a recent speech, President Obama noted:

"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans," (source)

I think that perhaps one thing in such a statement has not been addressed with this that we've heard from the now President that he'd also said frequently as a candidate, that is to say; why on earth do we want our government competing against the private sector? We've noted the result that it will gut the industry to the 'benefit' of the government system but what we haven't done is conceptually pointed out that under any circumstances that the government should never compete with the private sector.

While the health insurer industry is big and has lots of money. What they don't have is a trillion dollar budget with the unlimited capacity to spend on whatever it thinks is important. The government has no constraints. No matter the amount of money in a big corporation, it will always fail against the government if the government wants to make it fail, every time.

What we haven't done is pointed out that the government has chosen an industry to fail and is looking vote on taking it down. Think that the industry is evil? What if your industry is targeted? Perhaps the mobile phone industry, a favorite whipping post of the left? If they decide you are going down for the 'benefit of the people', you're going down.

Obama can suggest that it will be along side other choices but putting it along side the others will make them fail.

What of the cost of the program, that unlimited budget that cost to the American taxpayer. We're led to believe that it will not be a difficulty at all. According to Obama:

"I know there are some who believe that reform is too expensive, but I can assure you that doing nothing will cost us far more in the coming years," Obama said. "Our deficits will be higher. Our premiums will go up. Our wages will be lower, our jobs will be fewer and our businesses will suffer."

First, why hasn't anyone called Obama on the massive straw man argument? Have not any conservative leaders not been educated enough in debate to recognize that it would be easy to kneecap the argument if you pull away the garbage that is not at all related to the discussion. Did anyone notice that he gave a fictitious set of circumstances that materially has noting to do with it? Wages lowering? Jobs fewer? Whether or not such a thing would happen, it has nothing to do with the governmental cost of the proposed plan.

Has anyone noticed that it's not overly hard to debate the Great Orator given 30 seconds to think about any one thing?

Still, he says nothing about the cost. In speaking of the Canadian system, we've been told that it take only 10% of GDP versus U.S. healthcare, which comprises over 15%. There is a key difference between these statistics. One of them is managed by private, for profit corporations that do not incur wasted expenses. They are programs that normally cost the user about $20 a month. The statistic from Canada is one that represents cost to the government. That 10% of GDP is over half of the Canadian Federal budget. In fiscal year 2006, the estimated cost was 148 billion dollars against a 248 billion dollar budget.

This is why the Obama canard is put forth. It is, as has been de rigueur for the Obama Administration, a use of smoke and mirrors. He never did address the problem of cost. He used what is oft charged of the Republicans, fear. He painted a bleak picture to which he is the savior with the divine answer.

We are told that the Canadian system works, in supporting the system recently, the Denver Post recruited a Canadian to defend the system. Her are some gems from the article (source):

- In answering the charge that Canadian care decides when you get care, the writer said this:
"If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost."

Did you know that if you have a non-life threatening issue requiring an MRI, the wait might be well over a year due to the woeful availability for MRI clinics? So, if your not dying, good luck. My late wife had some issues that were not life threatening but living with the symptoms she had, 14 months would not have been acceptable. You can have, just not right away. I should note that while the charge that insurers can refuse them, my wife had a very rare malady that was an orphan disease. She had plenty MRI's. I call the charge of the writer, baloney.

- Regarding a similar issue:
"However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists."

Why is there a shortage? If the system chases good care providers out, what's the use of having the ability to pay for it? If I have a million dollars on a desert island, I have little more than kindling.

- Further on that point:
"If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care."

Why aren't they available at home but available in the States. Remember the disparity in the spending in GDP between Canada the U.S.? That 4%+ difference? Might those fancy machine and services that we have that they don't. Having that ability is going to incur a cost. I might point out that no one is complaining about it either.

With my wife, I had to pay thousands of dollars in additional expenses out of pocket. Sounds like lots. Her care cost hhundreds of thousands of dollars. Since she passed of something not related and the treatments were effective and quickly done, I was willing to pay a mere $3000 out of pocket. Yes, I could have it all paid for but I think I got quite a deal. Perhaps we might be willing to pay for that expertise. I am.

...Oh, I should point out that the writer was a Canadian Clinical Psychologist. Apparently that's the best the Post could do.

I think that we need to be very certain of ourselves that if we push against this movement with what small house of cards Obama and the Democrats have placed this debate upon and with the level of evidence that can overcome it, that winning the Healthcare debate should be easy. It's not yet but I'm hard put to find someone trying terribly hard in our leadership.

By now we've all heard the 'richness' quote from Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayer, ad nausea. I won't recount that but I think it is worth looking at the implications of that statement. What exactly comprises such experiences and why does it make for the ability to make better decisions. I'm sure you can guess that I might not agree.

First, I have a question; what is it about the Latina woman's experience that makes it rich?

By implication of the statement, it gives her an edge in decision making. Now, I think the ethnic background of most folks can be very interesting I think one of the thing about America is that we can meld these things in to one strong nation. I don't discount any experience excepting for the part wherein it makes for better decision making. Does it make the ability to make better decision than me, a white male?

To be clear, anyone with a great education and wherewithal is capable of making better decisions than me. As I sit here typing, I'm wearing fire engine red sweat pants, an orange t-shirt and big gray slippers that are almost like the old school Run-DMC Adidas. So maybe that onus is not particularly high but you get the idea.

What she could have said was that the 'richness of experiences' gave her a unique perspective that may not be available to others on the court. She didn't say that. She said it lets a woman of her like to make better decisions.

What of these experiences? I can't speak on the cultural aspect because my 'richness' would be from a Scandinavian perspective and that means Lutefisk, IKEA and ancestors that pillaged the Northern Hemisphere. I digress.

However, life experiences do make who a person becomes and this must be true for the Honorable Judge Sotomayer. She has, as often repeated, rose from some very humble circumstances.

So did I. Perhaps I have not been nominated for the court but I'm not qualified. Then again...Oops, I digress again.

In my youth as a son of a single mother, a mother that made near minimum wage during the inflation inflicted seventies, I had a number of experiences that have made my life rich.

When our washing machine went down, we had to go to the laundromat with garbage bags of clothes and a handful of change to have clean clothes. Not uncommon but not the life of a privileged youth. When money was tight; my mother, be the ever democratic and fair woman, called us teens and said we were not going to be able to make all the bills and that we had to decide, going in to a Minnesota winter, whether we wanted heat or electricity because we couldn't afford both. We chose electricity because our oven was electric and we could run it for heat. Again, not exactly the idyllic picture that seems to be implied by Sotomayer that would make me absent the ability to make good decisions.

Perhaps during my young adult years living in a basement apartment where the foundation was so bad that when it rain, half my apartment would be an inch deep in water. The same apartment that has a kitchen where everything was within arms reach. Or, perhaps struggling in a trailer park where each month was in fear of eviction might have added to my experiences.

Do I have 'richness'? Not my call to make.

Since my meager days, I've become an entrepreneur wherein with an '18 hours a day' ethic, the company I started with a mere $300 now grosses over a half million. With partners, I have become a silent partner these days. Since, I've become a corporate lackey but have a very good paying and difficult to get job at a Fortune 500 company.

What does this give me? Well, about the same experiences as millions in our nation. The spectrum of meager to success circumstance is what the American dream is. Nixon did it, Clarence Thomas did it, Clinton did it, most every business was started from someone who had nothing.

My story is not special nor is Sonia Sotomayer's. She's achieved. Great. Hard work will do that for you and should be commended. She's not the first.

If ethnicity be such an important aspect, then it should have been the same for conservatives such as Thomas or even the Bush appointees of Hispanic descent. It was not important then, when it was for Republicans, nor should it be prominent now.

Yes, this should be about skill. Then again, we are Republicans and that's what we think. Seems that an interesting story makes for a good candidate and not skill. If skill be the case, we would have Bork on the court.

So, as we watch this odd nexus of liberal wont with the important need to have a competent justice, what is it that an experience gives you? Well, it's everything you have as a person.

The point is, it does not give you anything more than any person of another ethnicity. Not when it comes to interpreting the constitution. I think that might be education.

With the heated debate surrounding President Obama's recent convocation speech at Notre Dame, the abortion debate has a new life. I should admit that I am less a cultural conservative and more a fiscal conservative but one thing gets me is when a politician ducks answers and tries to hoodwink the populace. If you recall during the campaign, Obama was dismissive of the late term issue. So, we now have this new debate presented to us. I see this as an opportunity.

With President elevating the debate by forcing himself upon Notre Dame (instead of bowing out), it is likely that this become an opportunity. That is if we can get on message and effectively shout down another plank of the liberal not-so-hidden agenda.

During his speech at the graduation ceremony, the President said this:
"...when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."

As you'll note, while the statement is wrapped in evenhanded rhetoric, the zinger Obama often inserts at the end of statements is there. That is to say that we need to find common ground.

I don't know that Abortion has common ground. Obama is calling to negotiate. Well, he already has Roe v. Wade and a Supreme Court Justice to be named, what more does he want? I would assert that no more 'common ground' be acceded in this debate.

Still, Obama want to appear to be sensible. He then noted:
" (lets) make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women,"

In other words, business as usual.

With all the cards in the liberal hand, what more could Obama possibly want. I'd assume it to be whatever Planned Parenthood wants. My guess but I assume I would not be far off. President Obama seems to want to set the agenda and this is perhaps the point.

He needs a shout down. It needs to be pointed out that Obama is neither reasonable nor willing to find common ground. When comes to Abortion, he has been unbending to the point of lying. Thus the need to make sure that the agenda is not set by him but by conservatives.

The real situation is that conservatives have been labelled as nutty when it comes to abortion and some of the more radical activist types have not made it easy fro conservatives to make a political and social point. However, I think we have a chance now to make the point of how radical the left is on the issue.

It is imperative that we do. Obama is setting up the court for just this debate and we need to be sure that the populace has not stomach for any more movement on abortion. This is the chance to expose what radicalism has been done by liberals.

...and Obama himself.

To knock him back on his feet, I suggest we revisit the Illinois State vote(s) on the matter. You know, that thing Obama was so dismissive of during the campaign. It was Jill Stanek that first brought this to the fore. However, I found myself less that overwhelmed by the thoroughness of the evidence regarding the vote. God bless her for doing so, though. While the most damaging things were discussed, it was never made as an airtight case.

Below I assembled what I believe is an airtight case that I feel needs to be broadcast far and wide. If you agree, take this or whatever iteration of it you see fit and make it known that this is the President's approach to the abortion debate.

A vigorous debate in the hands of Obama is more akin to a vigorous beating. To that I say, refute this -

Obama's voting and history on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Act:

The issue hinges on one key point in this issue, how was the amended bill handled when in his Health and Human Services Committee when he was chair?

The first thing is to set Senator Obama's position on the issue. While several press sources exist for his position on the original 2001 bill, below is a quote from FactCheck.org (a nonpartisan, nonprofit and part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center). The actual quote was from a CBN interview:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Senator Obama Quote:
"I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion."

This quote was in response to an original bill submitted to the Illinois Legislature 92nd General Assembly in 2001. The issue Senator Obama originally took up was the verbiage from the Illinois bill was different that the bill submitted federally. This is correct, the text was different. the Senator's fear was that it would open up the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade. Irrespective of opinions on Roe v. Wade, he was likely right about the interpretation of the 2001 bill (SB1095) . See the original text below: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV....

Text of the 2001 Illinois Act:
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
(note: the text in italics is where text in the 2001 bill differs from the federal bill)

Text of the Federal Bill:
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive' as defined in this section.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including born-alive infant.'.

As you can see, the bills do differ and leave room for interpretation. Again, while personal opinion of Roe v. Wade is subject to a personal interpretation, the difference does show why Senator Obama had an issue and as a Pro-Choice advocate, would be against the act as originally submitted. It provide intellectual consistency in his vote and subsequent statements regarding how he would support a bill with the federal verbiage.

Where the conflict begins is how the 2003 submitted bill (SB1082) in the 93rd General Assembly was handled. The first step is to clarify the path that the 2003 bill took:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID...

Bill Tracking History:
2/19/2003 Senate Filed with Secretary by Sen. Richard J. Winkel, Jr.
2/19/2003 Senate First Reading
2/19/2003 Senate Referred to Rules
2/26/2003 Senate Assigned to Health & Human Services
3/6/2003 Senate Postponed - Health & Human Services
3/11/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Richard J. Winkel, Jr.
3/11/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Referred to Rules
3/12/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Rules Refers to Health & Human Services
3/13/2003 Senate Held in Health & Human Services
3/14/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Rules
3/14/2003 Senate Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Rules
1/11/2005 Senate Session Sine Die

You'll see the first few steps of the Illinois Senate Body. The submitted bill had the original text from the 2001 bill but with the intent of amending it. You'll also note that the bill was sent to the Rules Committee whose function in this stage of a bill is to be sure that the bill does not violate any procedural items. The bill was handed to the Health and Human Services Committee a few days after submission to Rules from the Senate. This is all procedural and never disputed by any party.

Once the 3/11 review of the document occurs, this is the point at which the issue presents itself. What occurred. To come to the end of the pathway, you'll note that the bill never left the committee as it had been designation 'Sine Die' due to the end of the 93rd Congressional session.

What did occur?

As you'll note in the bill tracking, on 3/11 verbiage was submitted by Sen. Richard Winkel to amend the original 2001 text to that of the federal bill. I won't repost the original verbiage again but it was exactly as the 2001 bill. This was the starting point and the text would be amended from that original text. What, then, was the amendment to the bill. Below is the Amendment verbiage:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam...

SB1082 Amendment Verbiage:
Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 "(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section.".

In removing the previous text and replacing it, as the directly above Amendment does, the Illinois bill now becomes ostensibly the same bill as the federal bill (the text in the 2001 bill posted earlier). Recalling that Senator Obama advised he would have voted for the 2001 bill were it to have been like the federal bill.

Since this never made it out of the Senator Obama chaired Health and Human services committee; how did that occur?

The suggestion is that Senator Obama had actually voted for the Amended bill. This answer is only part of the story. When the Amended bill was proposed, it must first be voted as to allow the bill to add the amended language. Once the language is approved, then the bill, in total and amended, is voted on as to whether to pass the bill to the At-Large Senate floor.

The Senate Committee Action Report: 1) An up or down vote on adding the verbiage denoted by the motion 'DP #1' in the CA (Committee Action) column to the left. As the expanded legend shows, this is a call for a 'Do Pass' vote on Amendment#1 and thus DP#1 as the Committee Action. The resulting vote was 10-0 in favor of adding the amended verbiage (note that Committee member Iris Martinez was not available for the vote).

2) The next action was the Final Action of the bill (in the column to the right). Essentially, will it pass out of the Committee to the Senate At-Large. Again, as the expanded legend shows, this is a vote call to see if it will pass from the Committee with Amendment#1 now as part of the bill and thus DPA (Do Pass as Amended) as the Final Action.The result of this vote was substantially different. The result was 6 to 4. The majority 6 votes were against passing the bill from committee as amended. You'll note that Senator Obama was one of the 6 Senators to vote 'No' to pass as amended and that the vote was specifically a party line vote.

To the assertion by Senator Obama that he would vote for a bill that was like the federal bill, he specifically did not do so in committee and a committee that he was a chair of.

The bill essentially died in committee under rule 3-9(a) which states that if a bill exceed its preset approval deadline, that it is to be re-referred to the Rules Committee. However, the bill was held, then sent to the rules committee. (reference Illinois legislative rules: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/95thSenateRules.pdf pg 20)

It should also be noted that the committees report the bills that were passed to the Senate At-Large. From the 3/13 transcript (the actual reported day of the vote results that SB1082 was not reported as passed in committee:http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans93/09300019.pdf

Senate Health and Human Serviced Committee 'Do Pass, as Amended' reporting:
Senator Obama, Chairperson of the Committee on Health and Human Services, reports Senate Bills 127, 167, 199,371, 376, 467, 633, 810, 882, 1031, 1045, 1064, 1081, 1190, 1198, 1202, 1331, 1332, 1364, 1366, 1418, 1430, 1492, 1523, 1542, 1543, 1548, 1589 and 1882 Do Pass, and Senate Bills 263, 306, 359, 377, 378, 402, 459, 460, 552, 809, 1033, 1079, 1109, 1156, 1414, 1417 and 1649 Do Pass, as Amended

This is the history and sourced process from the issue of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Act and is essentially showing that Senator Obama had not done as he represented. Whether you agree or disagree with his position on this issue, it is important to note that how he and his campaign are presenting his position is not in sync with the above sourced and specified history.

Senator Obama stated that he would have voted for federal act driven bill verbiage but when presented with that opportunity, that is not what he had done and not what he has publicly disclosed.

On April 23rd, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin posted a floor statement wherein he stated:

"We should not be closing the doors to Cuba. We should throw them wide open. I had some friends who recently went to Cuba, through Mexico, with a visa. They came back and said, "You know, they are still using oxen for power in their agriculture."

Yoking oxen, in the 21st century, 90 miles offshore from the United States? If they knew and could see what modern agriculture could bring to them, if they could understand what freedom meant, even more, we would have a greater chance of bringing real change to Cuba."

The internet has a colloquialism for my reaction, it's called 'facepalm'.

Let me get right to the heart of the matter with an open question to Senator Durbin: Senator, is it possible that it's not a matter of Cubans knowing of such technology such as a combine and automation but that they are nearly the most abjectly poor nation in the hemisphere because they've been choked to fiscal death by a self aggrandizing, despotic dictator?

Durbin's statement assumes that Cubans must be completely out of touch with the century. That or he thinks they are just darn stupid.

I would assert they are neither. What evidence do I have of this? People in boats risking life to float across what is tantamount to an ocean to get to Florida. Seems they think there is a better world in America. See, the Senator also pointed out that his Lithuanian mother was not exposed to the Western World until openness came about in her country. For that I am glad for him and his mother. Lithuania is not Cuba and Cubans appears to know the difference.

By inference of his mothers story, the implication is that there is some comparative but it does not factor things like people trying to escape the island or dissident activities. Both things that need foreknowledge of a better life for them to occur.

If it weren't enough that he has separated himself from what is political reality, he lead to his summation with this:

"Some of the cold warriors that I hear on television, the commentators just cannot get over that (edit: engaging the despots). They cannot imagine that we would change a foreign policy that we have had over the Bush administration years, a policy that sadly did not reach its intended goals of better relationships and better respect around the world."

Revisionist history does seem de rigueur these days in DC but I seem to still remember that not engaging Cuba has been a policy since the Kennedy Administration which equates to a half century of policy. I don't think Bush is to blame for this since he didn't make or change an ongoing policy. What's odd is that prior to his blaming Bush, he pointed out that '50 years of policy has not worked' If Bush was to blame, I don't recall him being president for 50 years.

Did I mention that I had a hang nail? Yep, Bush's fault.

Still, Senator Durbin veers dangerously close to reality until he does the political equivalent of a swing and a miss by saying this: "It is a poor country, a nation that struggles with natural disasters as well as poverty of its own creation..."

Dick, you were on fire there.

That is until you finished with this:"...and one that would be open to change and opportunity."

Last I heard was that Raul and Fidel weren't running on a Hope and Change platform. They weren't running on any platform.They are dictators! My dusty dictator handbook does explicitly state that change is bad for dictator business.

Again: facepalm

When is it that we've had such a plain target in sight? When has it been that something has come up that is so simply incredulous that no matter your political persuasion, most will look at it and say to themselves; "Not really".

Ms. Napalitano has done just that. I generally veer from broad stroke rhetoric but the DHS Right Wing Extremism report is nine pages of stupid. If you haven't had the chance to actually read the document, please take a moment to peruse this document. If it weren't wrapped in a pretty little cover with official insignias and all, I'd assume it to be a periphrastically aimless work of a misled college freshman. It's just that bad. Granted, it has its genesis in the Bush administration but it wasn't until very recently that it's contents were widely distributed.

As noted by others, it lacks specificity. Well, they did mention Timothy McVeigh. I guess that was a detail not to be missed. You know, the one guy that did something bad in the name of a misguided belief of rightward dogma. So I guess I must acquiesce to this one single example.

To be clear, right wing extremism is an anathema to the American way of life and broadly to mankind. Key to this isextremism. That is to say that extremism by itself is a bad thing irrespective of the ideal it purports to represent.

That's really not the point of the report. It is a focus on the right.

Therein lies the beauty of this report. It's such an utter piece if garbage that it's really made itself in to a small barrel filled with a school of fish. In both an attempt to paint the right as racists and radical, the first item listed in the reports 'Key Findings' starts with this gem:

"Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts." (pg 2)

If the report is regarding domestic terrorism, shouldn't violence be in the cards somewhere?

That, my friends, was the start of the report. It just doesn't get any better after that. Yet, I wanted to draw out a really nice subtext to this report; that it states no less 4 times that the election of an African American President would be a catalyst for the suggested resurgence of 'right wing extremism'. Thank you again, Left, for painting conservative 'righties' as racists. Neat. It's that doctrinal dog whistle that only the motivated left seems to hear despite an excruciating amount of evidence that the Republican party or conservatives at large have never really been tolerant of racism. I can at least speak on behalf of the non-extremists, that is.

In light of this being release on the advent of the TEA Parties, I found the below inset from the report interesting:

"According to a 2007 study from the German Institute for Economic Research, there appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children—specifically xenophobia and antidemocratic ideals." (pg 4)

Well, in addition to the repeated call of racism of righties, I thought is was terribly odd that the statement ended with reference to antidemocratic ideals.

What?

In addition to it quoting a German study, (...and couldn't we maybe assert that there might be historical and cultural differences between Germans and Americans so as to render quoting such a report as usless in its presented context?) had the authors of this report not ever noticed that we on the right keep on pushing this liberty deal? That self same right that currently fears a slide to socialism.

More to the point; that self same right that finds such things as the Employee Free Choice Act a usurpation of privacy and voting rights?

Indeed, a shoddy report.

So, why is this a gift? Whenever anyone hands you a document loaded with dumb, it has to be a gift. It has to be an opportunity to point out the near fervor with which the now exposed and very left Obama administration is going to lean and that such things make an overall centrist nation just a mite uncomfortable.

I am happy that some press has made a little milage out of it. I think however, it needs to be a reference point wherein we point to a very real attempt to muzzle the right and do what was errantly suggested during the Bush administration, that people will be considered suspicious simply because of what they believe and not by any action.

This document should be a touchstone to us for what is really wrong in the left and what should galvanize us on the right. It's what we should point to for the nation at large to understand about the real left.

Without Janet's releasing of the DHC Reports, we'd have no evidence. That is the gift.

I'm about as 'un-minority' as you can get. I’m parts Swedish, Norwegian and a little German. So, to read forth, you probably should know that I have no idea what I'm talking about with regard to minority voters. That might be the point, though. It appears that the Republican Party, conservatives et al, just don't get what's going on with minorities.

I'd assert that it's probably because we aren't listening.

To context what I'm going to say hence, I need to summarize what Republicans do think: This is not a bad thing but Republicans tend to believe that you pull yourself up by your bootstraps. We believe that the way to make it in the world today is by making it on your own. We believe in traditional values with God and love of country at the forefront. We see the value in fiscal responsibility.

In my little myopic worldview, pretty much every minority I've met fits the above description and I think even more so than I do. The only difference is that most aren't Republican.

I think I'm about to tell Houston that we have a problem. Let me be clear, we have a problem.

Currently pervasive in Republican-think is the notion that if you see value in us, you are more than welcome to join us. The door is open. That's all well and good but fails as a Marketing 101 strategy. It appears that we think the world should fall at our feet because our ideas are so superior. It doesn't work that way.

Herein lies the key to my point, Republicans haven't bothered to court minorities pretty much at all. Do you recall in 2007 a few Presidential Candidate Forums hosted by Tavis Smiley? Remember that none of the frontrunners showed with the sad excuse that they had 'other commitments'? Anyone recollect that?

I know I can't speak on behalf of minorities but I do think that such a thing would really taint my judgment when voting.

Think about this: The candidates couldn't be bothered with rearranging schedules to go to a widely publicized forum dedicated to a big block of voters. That's a colossal slap in the face. Not only would I probably not vote for you, I'd probably start talkin' smack too.

So, you get that my point is we haven't really courted this voting block. I hear us say all the time that we should be more recognized for one of our party's earliest Presidents, Lincoln, abolishing slavery. I hear about our key role in and exceeding against Democrats support of Civil Rights. Heck, I even hear us mutter that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. It's nifty that we tell each other this stuff. Who else knows it?

What we fail to do is take on the very rewarding task of getting in the trenches and spending quality time with this key block of voters. They are represented not only by African Americans but Asian, Hispanic and a host of other wonderful groups. All with strong traditional values. Yet we spend no time courting.

As was said often in the last election, it is already a write off as a voting block; we are only wasting money on a group that historically in recent years did not vote Republican. That is our failure. Largely we think it is a failing strategy to spend any time or money seeking their vote.

We need not to care if this is done at a loss of time and money. If you think otherwise you are guilty of short-term, tactical thinking. Otherwise that thinking sends exactly the kind of signal claimed of us, that we don't care about minorities. Our actions speak for our attitude. That we think a loss of contributions is too great a price to pay for only incremental gains in this voter block certainly tells me that we don't care enough to invest in this group.

If there is validity to the axiom that you should put your money where your mouth is; our mouths are full on shut like a child in front of a full plate of broccoli.

It's simple logic, if we don't spend any time, money and effort on this group, we get the results we see every election. We think that it somehow is driven by policy but I assert when you look at these groups core values, it is less about these values that drives them away from Republicanism but more so our abject failure to recognize the value of the group by simply having a willingness to do what is done for all other groups of political interest, spend a little and talk. Make the conversation a priority.

To that end, we aren't even close. What do I know. Remember that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

A little while back as I was leisurely getting on the internet for a mite of mindless surfing, I saw on my customized iGoogle page an article from Fox. It was an article about moderate Democrats taking issue with elements of the new Federal Budget. To us, that would be news. What's funny, I'm not going to spend any time talking about that. Why should I? The mainstream media didn't.

No, I having bigger...and dumber...fish to fry. It was the following statements made that caught my attention:

From Senate Leader Harry Reid:
"But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., again left the door open to using this risky tactic, when talking about both topics.

"How we pay for all this -- the budget resolution said we have to pay for it," he told reporters. "So we're going to have to pay for it. And I don't know how we're going to do that, but we're going to do it. We're going to pay for it." "

Then from Finance Committee Chair, Max Baucus:
"Reid's own Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus, D-Mont, who would write health care reform legislation, went even further Tuesday.

"We're going to work to get cost-savings from inside health care ... That's where we should first look," he said.

"To the degree that we need extra revenue, then we're going to look at extra revenue, see what makes the most sense," he added. "There's a whole variety of sources." " ( Source )

What? I mean, what? Again, what?

Did those statements mean anything. I mean, they are are so nonsensical that I'm surprised they didn't win the George W. Bush Award for Circular Elocution!

What this really comes down to is that specifically the Democrats in congress do believe that Americans are just that dumb and they also know that the mainstream news will not call them on the stupidity when presented with the option. It will not occur. It's not that Harry Reid is really that dumb. George W. Bush wasn't. It's that Harry knows that he just has to say words, doesn't matter what ones, or even what order they're said, even if that aggregation of words means nothing.

The bow that ties this deal together is that the nation at large will never have any kind of exposure to this cyclopean opportunity to show our citizens a leader they now must contend with. This stuff needs to be barked far and loud to point to folks that the person who is an Officer upon the S.S. Sinking America, Harry Reid, is incapable of stringing a few words together to make any form of a cogent point.

The same could be said for Mr. Baucus. If we wonder why congress and the last two years have been an anathema to the American way, look at our Finance Chairman. He speaks in the tongue of a child who is trying to excuse him or herself out of homework.

It would be nice if people heard about this stuff.

President Obama is a chicken. Just a downright scaredy-cat, chicken. I'm not much for resorting to name calling but after having endured all the silliness that was the press coverage of the last eight years, I think I'm entitled. Why is the new President a chicken? Well, in his wont to manage his message, he's created rules for how the press is to be handled. Whatever Hope and Change means, it doesn't conceptually include transparency. Well, just ducky, if you'll pardon the mixed fowl metaphors.

During a recent event; you know, something as so benign as a Presidential re-swearing in,'Forty Four' did not allow really any independent press to cover the event. By independent, I mean to say, any press. If there's any one thing the press loves, it's being left out. So much so that the..."Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse refused to distribute photos taken by the White House of the new president on his first day in the Oval Office because of the dispute". (1)  Perhaps trouble in paradise? I doubt it. It's akin to a new couple having just moved in together. It will probably be o.k. and if you were to ask Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: ' "We think it was done in a way that was upfront and transparent," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a briefing when questioned why video cameras were not present.' (1) Well then, I feel better, how 'bout you? Nothing like a shot of 'trust me' to wash down the bitter pill of exclusion.

Still, it begs the question as to what's going to happen in the new Obama White House? In a kinder Presidency, Forty Four will be sure that not only will he think in terms of economic use of resources but will also be sure that press questioning will not be wasteful either. Read forth: In a recent press conference on behalf of the then Office of the President Elect, he was noted as saying to a reporters question: "Let me just cut you off because I don't want you to waste your question" (2) The question was about the Blagojevich deal. Understandably, the Federal investigators did say they didn't want Obama's folks to talk too much about this. However, it appears that when called on something uncomfortable, our new President wants to just cut the press off. It's alright if you're trying to help them. Conversely, I think it's o.k. to have the press go ahead and ask questions even if you can't answer them. Isn't that how it works now? The press asks the question and the politician dodges. It's tried and true.

Just remember that our President will manage the press and the questions it can ask because it's for their and our own good. A known theme from the campaign.

Lest we be worried, NBC Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker had this to say: "Our job is to hold him to account," Whitaker said, adding that he thinks "we're going to have to get tougher." (3) Now I feel like we have a real bull dog in the corner going after Obama. How could I not well with confidence? This stated from a man whose network decided that impartiality was optional and said so on the network's cable counterpart. That counterpart that not only left impartiality behind but became an active supporter of the person to which they just vowed that they would 'get tougher'. Doing so, I assume, will net a result of Valentines Day being just a card and the flowers now be forgone? To the extent that I find Mr. Whitaker's assertion credible, I remember Nixon telling us he was not a crook. Comparison be drawn...

What of the Obama press position? I recall that our new Commander in Chief had similar issues with the press before he even garnered the nomination. A lesson learned, keep the press at arms length. The reality is, President Obama saw what occurred to Forty Three and does not want the same. I don't much have confidence in the press with regard to political impartiality but I do have enough understanding of their vanity to know that if the President continues to throw little doggy biscuits of news items, the press will turn on him awfully quick. The press is considerably more vain than it is partisan.

It's an interesting dichotomy. They love him but President Obama knows that the press is circling and he wishes to manage that. It was o.k. so long as they were all united in the ouster of any Republican as a President but those were the good old days. Now the press has a sense of payback and none are coming. It's a cute error of a freshman Senator, which is ostensibly what Obama is. It shows that he is, well, chicken. He knows he is not up for the direct attack of the press. Forty Three wasn't either. The only material difference between the two is that Bush did not attempt to portray himself as a messiah with hallow-like visages abounding.

Obama owes the press and they know it. Obama is afraid that he will not fair well and in the face of a press certain to turn critical if he does not open up. Still, he knows that he is not up to speed and does not have the knowledge to meet the press demands. So, he coils to the safety if a managed message and heads to the chicken coup that is the Oval Office.

Right now, in the midst of the honeymoon, the press is allowing that. Then again, bull dogs used to be mean but now are cuddly if a bit ugly. Comparison be drawn.

 

(1) Associated Press (2009, January 23). Journalists spar with Obama

    over access issues. Retrieved January 26,2009 from , Web site:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/

(2) Breitbart (2008, December 16). Irritated Obama Lectures Chicago

   Reporter: ‘Don’t Waste Your Question’. Retrieved January 26,

  2009 from , Web site: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=242723

(3) York, B (2008, December 16). Irritated "Let Me Just Cut You Off,

  Because I Don't Want You To Waste Your Question". Retrieved

  January 26, 2009 from , Web site:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmNmMGYzZTE1MzRjNmRlY2MzNzZlNGY2YTg4MWNjMzI=

I'm not posting any late breaking news but you may have heard that Barack Obama got asked some difficult questions about his personal affiliations and statements during a debate this last Wednesday, April 16th. I was stunned at the sheer gall that the Good Senator was getting the old what for. It has no historical precedent and is an anathema to our political process! Well, that's what I've been hearing not just through the Wild West of Blogs but from editors and columnists alike. It was sheerly an outrage. The temerity of Msr.'s Gibson and Stephanopolous to not re-ask the same questions vetted in the last nearly dozen and a half debates. Perhaps these gentleman opted out of the liberal media play book and chose to ask questions that he been percolating in the minds of the electorate as of late. Still, shocking that such a thing could have occurred and that the so-called 'moderators' have stepped past the boundary of the previous acceptable behaviors from the fine journalists we've come to rely on for unbiased and rhetorically devoid coverage.

...or so it goes in every liberal blog and editorial pages this last week; feigned outrage. What of that outrage? You know, that there wasn't focus 'on the issues' but that the moderators chose to grill Senator Obama about some simmering questions. Have the trusted press always been so even handed and focused on the serious problems of the day? Not really.

Will Bunch of the Philly Daily Press said, as he wrote his post mortem opinion in an open letter to Gibson and Stephanapolous: " It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnessed, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking." (1) I don't know about you but I think the only time I got shaky hands is when I asked a girl out.  I can't see me feeling the same way about a debate that I do about the romantic aspects of the fairer sex. I like my politics but if the wife is feelin' frisky...What Bunch typifies in this fine, small statement is that after a free-for-all during the last eight years unimpeded by needing to hide liberal bias and unfettered by a deaf eared populace; that the gander does, in fact, get it after the goose and it's kind of a drag.

Mr. Bunch went further to suggest that the line of questioning was 'trivial'. I think he has shortened his capacity to remember or has placed a filter within his consciousness to sift out the stuff of his press compatriots from elections past.

As we all know, Senator Obama has been taken to task on his affiliation with Reverend Wright, to which he answered "Reverend Wright is somebody who made controversial statements but they were not of the sort that we saw that offended so many Americans. And that's why I specifically said that these comments were objectionable; they're not comments that I believe in."(2) The comments are bad but the man that spoke them and believes them is still an alright dude in his book.

That isn't so much the point but that our leftward pundits and journalists think it steps away from the issues. They're right. Still, I don't recollect they cared when it wasn't a Democrat. At the center of this is the Illinois Senator's association through a few decades of church going. In addition how stupid he must think we are to believe that he heard nothing of the like to the offending comments, when these distracted journalists had a chance to point out the folly of the now President Bush stopping at Bob Jones University for a single speech in 2000, it was seemingly egregious and quite a story at least for a single short stop. This would be versus a few decades of Obama's deaf ear-ness to his Pastor. The Press wrote on Bush for a month exemplified by stories on February 4th (3) in the New York Times and February 27 with CNN (4).

In the universe of a liberal journalist, a Republican speaking to a group for a few hours at a location that did, in fact, have a history of questionable policies was worth a month of coverage. Even though Bush had no real long term association. Conversely, a Democrat spends 20 years at a church with a caustic and historically public pastor (whose statements were known to spill to questionable topics), that we should be ashamed that we are not focused on 'the issues'. So, just to keep a record, 2 hours Republican time equals 20 years of Democrat time when it comes to ill associations versus the amount of time we can talk about it.

Shucks, forgot, we can't talk about Obama's judgment lapses at all.

 During the Debate, the subject of Weather Underground activist, William Ayers came up. Just so that you understand, his group bombed government building and the result was much damage and the death of one police officer. Effectively, Ayers killed someone. Mr. Obama's response is to state "And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."(2)

True, the acts were 40 years ago but the association was not, these recent decisions were not of an eight year old child. Barack decided to engage in activities, albeit pretty benign, with a known domestic terrorist and murderer. Why the 'eight year old' bit mattered in the debate, I'm not sure.

If I decided Charlie Manson was my buddy now, would that make my judgment better? You know Charlie had people killed 35 odd years ago, so that means I made good decision today to hang with Chuck. Adult decisions, not that of a child. It matters little that Obama and Ayers didn't do much together, that they served on boards and Mr. Ayers raised some money for the campaign is still close enough for concern with Obama's judgment.

To be told that a few decades ago should not be relevant, I assume that we would have heard little in 2004 about the National Guard. That, and Dan Rather would still have his job. I seem to remember we heard ad nausea about the National Guard service of Bush. I believe that was a few decades ago that occurred. Correct?

The issue with Obama is that he might be a newer, friendlier snake oil salesman. In the Debate, he noted: "And that's why we decided we weren't going to take...money from federal registered lobbyists, that we were not going to be subject to special- interest influence"(2) Except that he has about $3.5million in his coffers from Lobbyists.(5) Senator Obama really just has a truth problem.  But this is a digression.

Still, the outrage that Obama be questioned at all.

On everyones favorite even handed PAC, MoveOn.org, the team over there posted a petition with text titled Enough Distractions: "Editor & Publisher called this week's ABC presidential debate 'perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.'...Moderators George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about--gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channelling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously...Enough is enough. The public needs the media to stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year."(6)

'Seriously', they assert. It's the kind of word insertion used when you try to convinced your other 15 year old friends of something they won't believe. Very professional. Just like spelling 'channeling' with two 'L's'...They'd like us to take them seriously but I'm certain that I won't until they learn how to use Spell Check. I am being kind of petty but, seriously...I mean, with all the 'Roveian' distractions, how are we going to elect Obama? I think that MoveOn suffers from situational inconsistencies. We cannot now speak to these distractions of Senator Obama lest we vere from the path of serious issues. Seriously.

Unless 2004 is the exception year. Remember we talked about the National Guard issues earlier?  From MoveOn.org regarding their reaction to the John Kerry 'Swiftboating': ""The MoveOn response -- airing in the same four markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, and on CNN and Fox News -- begins by attacking President Bush's military record..."George Bush used his father to get into the National Guard, and when the chips were down, went missing,"(7)

I assume this was an important issue in 2004. If I recall from early in this writing, we should not be focusing on stuff from 30 to 40 years ago. I guess that's the new rule for 2008. I didn't get my 'Liberal Guide to Politics and Elections' yet. I shouldn't have allowed myself to fall off the mailing list. I missed all the big changes.

That we cannot ask difficult questions of the man bestowed with the virtues of Senator Obama is really antithetical to the process we've seen come to fruition during the Bush years. The reality is, this stuff goes back to the earliest days of our great nation. It was even worse then. To act as though a few questions is going to derail issues is naive. It's also been the greatest exposure of media bias I've seen. It's not that people would complain that this stuff does sidestep actual issues. I agree. It's that we not have gotten a conscience about when when it is Senator Obama. Not the assassination of Bush over the last eight years, that would not raise the bar enough. It's that it is now, I assert 'one of them'. A real liberal and he was popular.

The reaction to the debate was childish.

My hands are shaking now. Must be low blood sugar. I'm pretty hungry. Seriously.

(1) Bunch, W. (2008, April 17). An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapolous. Retrieved from Web site: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/An_open_letter_to_Charlie_Gibson_and_George_Stephanopoulous

(2) (2008, April 16) Democratic Debate in Philadelphia. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html

(3) (2000, February 4). THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE CHALLENGER; Bradley Blasts Bush for Talk At Bob Jones U. Retreived April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E3DA103FF937A35751C0A9669C8B63

(4) (2000, February 27). Bush expresses regret over Bob Jones U. appearance, while Bradley and Gore stump in Seattle. Retreived April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/27/campaign.wrap/

(5) (2008, April 17) Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from Web site: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm

(6) (2008, April) Enough Distractions. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from Web site: http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?rc=homepage

(7) Kurtz, H. (2004, August 17) MoveOn.org's Swift Response to Anti-Kerry Ad. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from Web site:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6381-2004Aug16.html

Republicans are destined to lose congressionally in 2008. It’s inevitable. By writing such a thing, you’d assume I am a closet Democrat. Nope, just being realistic.

Why the pessimism? The party has no focus on any local activity. Sure, when you go to RNC.org, there are links to local ‘stuff’ but there is no strategy. Did you know that the DNC has something called the ’50 State Strategy’?(1) True. As quoting Howard Dean “Election by Election, State by State, Door by Door, vote by vote….we’re going to lift our Party up and take this country back for the people who built it.” (1). I find that a compelling statement. I look at Mr. Dean as one of those ‘far left’ types that shouldn’t get traction with the average voter. However, from his quote, he intends to outwork the Republican Party for every single vote! If his statement be serious, it appears he might be deserving of these votes. Too bad is ideology stinks.

I assume by now you get my point, we are doing nothing for the local races. From that, we will congressionally get what a Chris Farley character iterated as a ‘hot cup of jack squat’.

Is the Republican Party really that lame when it comes to the localities? To be sure, I went to the RNC site for my State of Illinois.(2) What are the resources available to me? A few headlines from national news and information about my state party leadership. I thought maybe the menu link to volunteer might be useful but, alas, it was just a web form. How underwhelming.

What do the Democrats have available to them? Neighborhood Leader DVD FAQs, Neighborhood Leader canvassing tips, Neighborhood Leader house party logistics, Neighborhood Leader sample house party agenda and Talking Points. The Democrats are coming to the fight with strategic weaponry akin to hammers, swords, guns and spears.

We Republicans decided to walk in to the kitchen and grab a butter knife. The Democrats are going in for the kill and we are going in looking for another piece of Grandma’s fine silver.

I’ve been told that when presented with a problem, it is appropriate to offer solutions. The first thing is to stop cleaning the tarnish from Grammy’s silver and start arming up with weapons for resources. That said, I need stuff to help me organize. What helps me connect with other Republicans in the area? Sure, the RNC site does have a nifty tool to connect with others in the area but what are we connecting for?

We need a single and simple message to sell. We need to be able to materially connect with others not via a random listing but in a coherent and purposeful manner. We need tools available to all of us that reflect that single and simple message.

For cry eye, we needed a strategic plan! We need tools to execute it. I need to be able to turn to someone that asks why I’m a Republican and be able to reiterate a simple message. Perhaps I can tell them a message that I’m a Republican because we are ‘Standing for the Growth and Future of All Citizen’ and provide material support for that assertion.

We can’t just continue to keep picking at the carcasses of the Obama/Clinton gaffes in the hope that this will win us support at large. Then again, all I hear is capitulation to the certain seat loss in November with no real reaction to this. Republicans have become very lazy in a political sense and are deserving of the ‘cup of jack squat’.

Thus, we may have visions of miracle election fairies delivering us from plastering in the 2008 cycle but like many fantastical things, will not become a reality. Lest we at least try.

(1) A 50 State Strategy. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from Web

site: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy/

(2) IL State Party. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from Web

site: http://www.il.gop.com/StatesPage.aspx