Stop! Enough, already! You're all making my head hurt. Yes, there's a lot which can be said about Tuesday's elections, to include diametrically opposed things about the same election results, depending on who you are and how you want to spin those results. For example, the White House is sad, doesn't care, is scared, dismisses, is encouraged by, sees things this way, doesn't see things that way -- and all at once, if you believe all the "interpretations" and spin and blather.

What it all means to me, and I do hope I'm right about this, is that these off-year elections are a culmination of a long simmering disaffection with establishment Republicans in general and Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) in particular, which has been given even more impetus by the TEA Party and 9/12 grassroots movements which have been growing since last Spring's Tax Day TEA Party protests. If the nationwide TEA Party protests on April 15 and July 4, 2009, didn't give the Republican establishment and RINOs enough of a heads up, surely the massive march on Washington and protest at the Capitol building of hundreds of thousands, perhaps over a million, TEA Party and 9/12 protesters on September 12th surely should have. And if even all that didn't, then look to Virginia's and New Jersey's elections and their crushing victories for real Republican conservative candidates.

All liberals, in and out of the lamestream media and entertainment industries, and all Democrats and, so far, most of the Republican establishment, and RINOs alike, have acted like if they just ignore or make fun of the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers and frustrated town hallers long enough, the angry I-want-my-government-and-freedoms-back protesters will simply run out of steam and just go away. Well, hellooooo? Not hardly. Ain't gonna happen.

Add it up. Long-term, simmering conservative dissatisfaction with Republicans acting too much like Democrats and losing in 2006 (benchmark), then losing even bigger in 2008 (benchmark), to hundreds of thousands all across the country protesting on April 15th (benchmark), to hundreds of thousands more protesting on July 4th (benchmark), to many hundreds of thousands more protesting on September 12th (benchmark), to as recently as this Thursday when an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 more, again from all across the country, in the middle of a workweek, showed up to protest at the Capitol Building -- again -- based on a call from a single conservative, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and with only a few day's notice! I'd say "benchmark" again. That's not a sign of going, as in going away. That's a sign of growing, as in growing enough to say, "We're here to stay and will not be denied."

I'm beginning to wonder how many times and in how many different ways we have to write things large and small for the Republican establishment and RINOs to finally see the handwriting on the wall: Conservatives are fine, and real moderate Republicans are okay, but RINOs are not! RINOs are an endangered species!

Case in point: Many liberals and much of the left-wing media are describing the NY-23 district election as a "split" in the Republican Party because a "moderate" Republican candidate was forced to withdraw because some national level Republicans and Conservatives supported the Conservative candidate. Well, yes, although the national Republican establishment did support the "moderate" Republican (that is, until they didn't), some nationally known Republicans and Conservatives did support the Conservative candidate. But they did not do so against a "moderate" Republican candidate, for there was no "moderate" Republican candidate in the race.

"In his midnight mission to honor the returning war dead, President Obama did more than personally extend the nation's condolences to grieving families gathered at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware."

"He silently saluted in the morning darkness as the remains of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan were transferred from a military transport. He spent close to two hours talking in private with stricken families."

I don't want to be too cynical here, but I just can't help being at least a little bit so. First, as a military man for over 20 years, I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with presidents rendering the military salute anyway, not for the least reason that some of them don't do it very well. But then, I've come across some in the military who don't always, either. Still, I would prefer that our president, during ceremonies and such, render the civilian "salute" of placing the right hand over the heart, rather than render a military salute. The president is by constitutional requirement a civilian. The requirement that our president, albeit also our commander-in-chief, is a civilian exercising civilian control over our military is one of our basic checks and balances, so I want our president to look and act like a civilian. I guess that's part of what makes me feel more comfortable seeing only military personnel and veterans rendering the military salute. You know, people who've "been there, done that." But, alas, one of my favorite of all our presidents, Ronald Reagan, sort of started all this presidential military saluting stuff by asking his military advisor if he could return military salutes to those in the military who saluted him and was told that as the commander-in-chief he could salute whomever he wanted. Thus, presidents using the military salute almost wherever and whenever they want to was off to the races.

And here, in all fairness, I will give Obama credit. During his campaign, he didn't know the difference between a military battalion and a brigade, which is basically that a brigade may be three to four to even five times the size of a battalion and has a lot more equipment, and he may still not know much about the military. I suspect he doesn't. In fact, he may never know much more about it than he needs so that he sounds like he knows a lot by how he talks about it. But that military saluting thing, he's got that down. He's had someone instruct him and he's practiced in front of a mirror, and he renders the military salute as well as just about anybody. Well, probably except for those of us who've been on military drill teams when we were younger.

Anyway, I've digressed from my main point. I agree it was a nice gesture for Obama to go to Dover last week, but I think it was more photo op than anything else.

The last couple of weeks haven't gone too well for the campaigner-in-chief and he needed another distraction -- something other than his dithering over Afghanistan, his being embarrassed by Iran (again), his hypocritical hype about health care reform -- for the "newsers" to talk about for a while.

(I know, while I dither over Afghanistan, I'll do something to show my respect for the troops! How about some kind of photo op we can feed the media? Oh, Dover AFB? What about Dover? Oh, really? That sounds like just the thing. Set it up.)

He got permission from one of the families involved in welcoming home their dead hero at Dover AFB for the repatriation to be photographed and/or videotaped and had himself videotaped solemnly saluting the returning remains.

Of course, it was also something which liberal pundits have since repeatedly pointed out that Bush never did because he didn't want to call attention to how many flag covered coffins were coming home, despite the fact that how many casualties we had for any given day, week or month were all over TV and print media all the time.

It might just as well be said that Bush also didn't want to call attention to himself to the point of having himself photographed or videotaped all the many times he met in private with, comforted, and prayed and wept with the families of the fallen, either. But, hey, the liberal pundits don't say much about that. I guess, if it's not a photo op and it's not as much about you as it is about whomever you're "honoring," then it doesn't really count, huh?

But, once again, Obama, as much narcissist-in-chief as commander-in-chief, couldn't help making the Dover event as much about himself as the returning dead by having his solemn after-midnight and picture perfect salute recorded for the evening news. So, good for him for going but shame on him for making it as much about himself (again) as anything and for using it as a deceitful distraction during his dithering indecision about Afghanistan.

[I've got to hurry and fire this one off, so all of you know I made my predictions well in advance of today's election trends, much less the results. Otherwise, I don't get credit for being smart enough to be right, which I do so love when it happens.]

Today, even the liberal lamestream media are watching three elections as possible bellwethers for 2010, the two gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and the District 23 race in upstate New York.

My predictions:

In the purple state of Virginia, which Obama carried in 2008 by a comfortable margin, I think the Republican candidate will not only win but will win by double digits, despite Obama having come here twice to support the Democratic candidate. In fact, I think it will be a Republican sweep across all races -- gubernatorial, attorney general and state delegates. Of course, if the Republican wins, Team Obama will blame the loss on a weak Democratic candidate, which even the president's star power could not help, who didn't run a good campaign. In fact, anticipating that outcome itself, the White House has already started distancing itself from the Democratic candidate. And also, of course, should the Democrat win, then that will be BECAUSE of Obama's star power in helping out. Team Obama likes to have its cake and eat it too, whenever possible.

In the deep blue liberal state of New Jersey, an even more telling race, I think the Republican candidate will narrowly defeat the incumbent Democrat, despite Obama having visited there three times in recent weeks in support of the Democrat. This loss, if it occurs, would be harder for Team Obama to "explain" (read: spin), but I'm sure they will try, and with their normal straight faces, too, looking right into the camera and lying. The fact is the incumbent Democrat Corsine is simply not very well liked around his state and I don't think Obama's coattails are long enough to offset that.

(Gee, I wonder how many millions in taxpayer dollars have been spent flying that big old Air Force One jumbo jet around to New Joysey and good ole Virginny so many times? Oh well, we all know by now that Obama doesn't mind spending other people's money.)

And in the upstate New York District 23 race, I think the Conservative Hoffman is poised to defeat the Democrat, even after the Republican in name only (RINO) candidate got almost a million dollars of Republican contribution money from the GOP, then dropped out of the race, and then swung her support to the Democrat! (Uh-huh, see, told ya, real birds of a feather, can't always tell a book by its cover, and all that. Talk about biting the hand that fed ya! Egg on the faces of the GOP leadership and some Republican former party stars who backed her -- big time! And, by the way, no more money from me to the GOP unless and until they show they know how to spend it better than wasting $900,000 of it on a RINO who then "turns" on the party.)

In other words, I'm predicting Democrat losses across all three races, and that should send several signals to both Republicans and Democrats.

To Republicans:

a. Stop worrying about making "the tent" so big by recruiting and supporting Democrat-lites and just get back to core conservative principles. It's nice to act so that everybody likes you, but in fact, no matter what you do, everybody isn't always going to like you. So, be who you are and you will at least be more able to count on those who do act like they like you, because they probably really do.

b. Stop "playing nice" just because the Democrats and other liberals shriek that you are the "Party of No," that you are obstructionists, or every time one of you says something they don't like or which they think they can make something out of. Be happy warriors, smile and then pin their ears back with logic and facts, two areas in which liberals are traditionally deficit. (I've long said that one main difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals feel and conservative think.) In other words, don't take any crap. Each and every time a liberal makes a false charge or claim, jump on it, challenge it and show how it's false. Don't miss any. Instead of letting them dictate that you are the "Party of No," make them into the "Party of Liars." Instead of letting them bully you into "playing nice," less you be criticized for something real or imagined, make them paranoid about being challenged on any and every thing they say and do which is the least bit questionable. Attack, attack, attack.

c. If the TEA Party and 9/12 demonstrations and protests had not already given you a big enough clue (and the NY-23 RINO candidate pick indicates at least some of you certainly missed it, or at least badly misread it), they are nationwide, genuine grassroots, CONSERVATIVE (almost Federalist) movements. They are comprised of Republicans, moderate and disaffected (Obama voter's remorse) Democrats, Independents and Libertarians, as well as many people who have never had any party affiliation before, and almost all of them are folks who've never "organized," demonstrated or protested before, either. However, they are doing so now because they are disaffected with both political parties, they are either scared or angry, or both, about where they see Obama and the Democrat Congress taking the country, they are frustrated they are not being listened to, and they are not going away any time soon. In fact, they are becoming more and more organized and growing. But I think the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers have grassroots organized so far because they had to, because no one was representing or listening to their viewpoints and concerns. And I also think many of them are "looking for a home," an already existing organization which they feel will truly represent them and do something about their issues. We don't need a third major political party in this country. That could lead to more and more "splinter" parties and then we'd be in the same boat as many European and other countries around the world in having to always form often messy and unstable "coalition" governments. But, poll after poll still show that this is a center-right nation, and if Republicans can exhibit a real return to core conservative values and can capture the passion, and allegiance, of these grassroots protesters, "the tent" will not only be big enough but they will have channeled an energy across the country which cannot -- which will not -- be denied, or defeated.

To Democrats:

a. You have already badly overreached -- and, amazingly, you continue to do so. It's almost as if there's something in your drinking water and/or you just can't help yourselves. Okay, you elected the first black president and have control of both houses of Congress, so you have some reason to be euphoric but not enough permanent power to act stupidly elitist and continue to get away with it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but then no power is permanent, either. Unless there really IS some secret and nefarious vast left-wing conspiracy, some pernicious "progressive" plan to permanently takeover the federal government and suspend future elections, you had better stop, or at least slow down, your unconstitutional overreach and arrogant abuse of authority. A day of reckoning is coming.

b. You ignore -- decry, deride and dismiss -- the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers at your own peril. The Democrat Party is the one which most often complains (sometimes accurately and sometimes falsely) about this or that faction of the electorate being "disenfranchised," usually by some wicked conservatives and/or Republicans (not always the same thing nowadays). You incessantly portray your party as the one which cares the most for the most "victim" groups, yet you hypocritically refuse to recognize that the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers are themselves feeling disenfranchised and victimized, in large part by you. They are not going away just because you pretend they are not there, or that they don't matter. In fact, that attitude by both political parties in not addressing their concerns is what got them fired up and grassroots organizing in the first place, most of them for the first time in their lives. And they are growing and becoming more and more organized every day.

c. The outcomes of today's elections, as well as what I've said about the TEA Party and 9/12 movements, should send a strong message of caution, if not to your arrogant and out-of-touch party leadership, at least to you Blue Dog, or moderate, Democrats, because 2010 is coming and you will be judged more closely than you might think by what you do, who and what you support and how you vote between now and then. Tenga cuidado, Senors, Senoras y Senoritas. Tenga cuidado.

But, now, with this go-round, Nanny State Nancy has learned her lesson. Pelosi's 400,000 word, 1,990 page, 19-plus pound health care reform bill is practically TWICE as big -- longer than Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" and five times longer than the Old Testament. It's "short" title is -- remember to name it nice, now, so the voters will know just by its name that we're looking out for them -- the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act (AAHCA) of 2009."

And even if they do post it on the Internet, as promised, for three days (remember when Obama promised five?) before voting on it, and you do have time to read it all, you still won't know what it says because it's full of legalese and much of it refers to and/or cites other official documents whose language is not included in the bill and to which you probably don't have access. Besides, it would take lawmakers themselves, who are used to reading Congressional legalese and who might be able to cross-reference the other documents, several days to go over it even once. And clever Nancy will probably push for it to be voted on before November 11th's Veteran's Day.

So much for "apparent" transparency.

"Oh, we don't have to really BE transparent. We just have to APPEAR to be so we have "political cover" (read: plausible deniability) and can smile and dissemble and pat our stupid little constituents on the head while keeping them quiet and happy at the same time."

But, oh, don't worry, because now while the "public option" of single payer universal health care paid for by the government, i.e., your tax dollars, is still actually in there, it's not called the "public option" anymore. Now, according to Nanny State Nancy, it's the "consumer option." Makes a BIG difference, huh?

Oh, and there's still not any language specifically prohibiting the federal funding (your tax dollars again) of abortion, either, for those of you (and me) to whom that matters.

Anyway, more on this subject later, as our congressional "progressives" make "progress."

Now, in more fairness to POLITICO than they give us in many of their liberally slanted stories, they aren't saying this "breaking news" is TRUE; only that they are "breaking" the "news" that this is what the White House is going to CLAIM.

But, anyway, I just LOVE "Breaking News," don't you? It always sounds so EXCITING.

"And, next, BREAKING NEWS! But, first, a word from our sponsors."

And it's always best if seriously intoned by a male with a good baritone voice, too. You know, the kind that gives MSNBC's Chris Matthews a "tingle" up his leg, or the voice in which Keith Olbermann -- known to me as Monsieur Pomposity d' Blowhard (pronounced with a French accent) -- "intones" almost any and every ridiculous thing he says.

(Side note on Olbermann's style: I learned years ago when teaching via facilitating small group dynamics in experiential learning that when you learn to fake sincerity, you've got it made.)

But, I digress. A good "breaking news" announcement hearkens back to earlier, more Golden Days of radio and TV, with such catchphrases as Walter Winchell's "Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. America, from border to border and coast to coast and all the ships at sea," or Edward R. Murrow's "Good night.....and good luck," and even Walter Cronkite's "And that's the way it is..."

Well, here's the REAL "breaking news." The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board is the government watchdog group which oversees how the stimulus monies are spent. It reports that contractors who received money from Obama's failed $787 billion stimulus program "created or saved" 30,383 jobs (NOT "at least 1 million") by the beginning of October 2009.

Since the report covers only spending on infrastructure and social programs being carried out by private companies, which were awarded about $16 billion in stimulus funds, that amounts to $526,610 per job "created or saved."

That's roughly comparable to Spain's nation-wide failed experiment a couple of years ago in creating "green" jobs, which also cost about half a million dollars per job to create.....and many of them were not sustainable jobs, either, but only lasted for the life of the project which they were created to accomplish.....just like many "green" jobs currently being started up and touted in this country.

Hey, if you want to "save" my job or create a "green" one for me, don't bother. Just give me the half million outright and I'll be fine. Plus, I'll know a helluva lot better than the federal gub'ment seems to how to spend it, too.

So,

"And THAT'S the way it (really) is..."

1. ObamaCare alternatives?
Oh, I dunno, maybe some of the things the Republicans of the so-called "Party of No" have been proposing but which the Democrats have been ignoring, like:
Interstate insurance competition, medical savings accounts, tax free insurance or credits, tort reform, fee for service, rewarding outcomes, medical malpractice reform, prohibiting coverage denials based on preexisting conditions, guaranteeing portability, electronic prescriptions and medical records, streamlining billing codes and practices, price and quality transparency, pay-for-performance measures, one-stop primary-care “medical homes,” chronic disease management initiatives, tax equity for health insurance purchases, increased incentives for health savings accounts, or creating the ability to purchase insurance or form risk pools across state lines.
Our health care system and health insurance do need reform. Everyone agrees on that, But it's already the best in the world and just needs some tuning up, not a whole new and untested model of car. Especially when the federal government tends not to turn out Ferraris but Edsels, thank you very much.

2. Cap and Trade, Cap and Tax, Crap and Tax - what's the difference?
Once again, class: Everyone wants to ensure our kids grow up in a clean environment. Some just want to bankrupt us while doing it, and some of us would prefer a more logical approach. For the second group, The Heritage Foundation has some figures and charts that provide a helpful look at the immense costs associated with the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax plan to forcibly cap carbon. According to the new report, “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," recently released:
a. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
b. Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
c. Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses would be 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
d. The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
e. A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
f. Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.
So, Waxman-Markey's Crap and Tax Plan does sound like a PLAN, but not a very GOOD plan.

[This article's mainly opinion for entertainment, with some tongue-in-cheek and a few facts mixed in, so get a cup of coffee, or maybe a glass of wine, or whatever's your poison, and relax and take your time.]

4. Cash for Clunkers was such a success!
In the aftermath of President Obama’s Cash for Clunkers Program, US auto sales plunged 23%: 47% at GM, 44% at Chrysler, 8.9% at Ford, 16% at Toyota, 23% at Honda, and 11% at Nissan.
 
5. Who's who in Honduras?
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator John "horse face" Kerry (D-MA) blocked Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) from traveling to Honduras on a fact finding mission, while President Obama and Congressional Democrats continue to support the deposed former president, who tried to override the Honduran constitution and become president-for-life, instead of supporting the democratic government in upcoming elections. Maybe Obama sees a "model" in Honduras he would like to emulate here? Just askin' - Just sayin'.

6. You may be Taliban if:
a. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.
b. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
c. You have more wives than teeth.
d. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."
e. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
f. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.
g. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
h. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
i. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least two.
j. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

7. Notable quotable
So-called "conservative" David Brooks on Obama's pants, after meeting the president for the first time: "I remember distinctly an image of – we were sitting on his couches and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant -- and I'm thinking (a) he's going to be president and (b) he'll be a very good president." Gee, that's at least close to MSNBC's Chris Matthews' "tingle up the leg," isn't it? Who ARE these guys, and what kinds of measures of who will make a good president do they engage in? 

8. What's the hurry?
Rich Lowry, Editor, National Review, on President Obama's "Plan for Health Care Reform," said it best: "As with the stimulus package, Obama's health care plan depends on speed. More important than any given provision, more important than any principle, more important than sound legislating is the urgent imperative to Do It Now. Do it now, before anyone can grasp what exactly it is that Congress is passing. Do it now, before the overpromising and the dishonest justifications can be exposed. Do it now, before Obama's poll numbers return to Earth and make it impossible to slam through ramshackle government programs concocted on the run. Do it now, because simply growing government is more important than the practicalities of any new program."

9. A nook, a cranny, a crook?
In the difference between a nook and a cranny, a nook is a corner and a cranny is a crack. So, why wouldn't that mean that a crack in a corner would be a crook? No, I forgot, the real crook is the Congressman in the corner, making condescending cracks about his constituents.

10. A not very apologetic "apology"
Media Matters, after attributing two "racist" statements to radio host Rush Limbaugh but then not being able to substantiate them, said on October 22, 2009:
You know, in fairness to Rush, those two out of literally dozens of racist things were not necessarily accurate. We were never able to find them. We've had people call us trying to find it. We don't know where they came from. They could just be Internet apparitions. But you know, that being said, anyone who wants to know how racist he is, we're happy to give them other examples.
But then, despite saying "in fairness to Rush" (yeah, like that's what they're all about) and "those two out of literally dozens of racist things" (dozens? -- really?), they ..... um ..... failed to provide ANY of the "other examples." So, with Media Matters, it must be just like it is with the Obama Administration -- "It's so just because we SAY it's so."

So, I don't mind, in fact I expect, getting back from the government what it owes me for services rendered and past payments made. But I've never asked my government for any kind of handout. My dad taught me as a boy that when you need a helping hand, it's always best to look at the end of your own arm first.

One of President Obama's most recent ideas is to give seniors $250 apiece to help them cope with not getting a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) in their Social Security checks this year. Nope, I don't think that's what it's really for. COLAs are based on the annual Consumer Price Index and the Social Security trustees have assessed that the index shows no increase in costs, so there should be no COLA increase this year, either.

Remember, the cost of living this past year went down, along with the economy, not up. Giving bonuses now would defeat the purpose of the COLA, which was indexed to inflation starting in 1975 to help keep seniors' purchasing power even with inflation, not to increase their purchasing power against the inflation rate.

If Washington bypasses the trustees' COLA recommendations this year, the yearly adjustments will lose their meaning -- a meaning which is significant so that Washington can both help seniors make ends meet and restrain the growth in federal spending. In a concept which seems totally alien to Obama and the Democratic Congress, as well as some RINO Republicans, it's called "fiscal responsibility."

However, the reality, at least the political reality, in Washington right now is that many politicians want to write checks to seniors. Why? Because seniors vote in great numbers and already dislike Medicare cuts embedded in most, if not all, of the current round of so-called health care/insurance reform proposals being pushed by Team Obama and floating around Congress, as well as a lot of other things being done by "progressive" politicians, so those politicians want to "secure" those seniors' votes, don'tcha know?

Well, that seems too much like a bribe to me, and my vote can't be bought at any price and certainly not for a measly $250. So, thanks but no thanks. I just hope that when you slick politicians get ready to do this, you offer a way for those of us who don't think we deserve it, to opt out of receiving it. But you probably won't. After all, it would be contrary to everything liberals believe in about all of us in the great unwashed masses for anyone not to want "free" money, right?

Forget the fact that it's not really "free" money because it will be paid for by my taxes and yours. Forget the fact that some people actually have enough self-esteem that they don't want something for nothing, in other words, a handout. And forget the fact that some people actually have enough self-respect to resent attempts to buy them off, including trying to buy their vote.

So, if you provide a way for me to refuse accepting your Social Security handout, I will exercise it and opt out -- because I didn't earn it, because I don't need it and because I'm more than just a little tired of Washington liberals spending my tax money like it was their own on this or that scheme, even if it's one by which I may benefit.

But, since you probably will just assume everyone will be so happy to get it and therefore won't include such an opt-out provision, if you send it, I will accept it and use it the best I can, both for myself and in my small way to stimulate our economy -- by spending all of it either toward the purchase of another gun or maybe on some more ammunition for the guns I already have.

After all, I'm thinking, the way things are going, my guns, my ammo, my faith and my freedoms are the things I really don't plan to run out of any time soon, Mr. President, no matter what your plans are. Just don't tell your Attorney General buddy Eric "Americans are cowards about discussing race but we won't prosecute Black Panthers who have confessed" Holder, okay? He and your inarticulate Homeland Security Secretary Janet "acts of terrorism are just man-made disasters" Napolitano already think I'm some kind of domestic terrorist, anyway, just because I'm a veteran, was in law enforcement, am a conservative and don't like most of your "progressive" (that's spelled M-A-R-X-I-S-T) policies. No sense getting them all upset that I'm using my unearned and unrequested government handout for something as practical as buying more guns or ammo.

Oh, and if you, or he, or she should plan to send someone to my house to "check" on that, maybe you should be aware of what I used to tell hard core prisoners who threatened me about what they were going to do when they got out of the Army stockade which I commanded and which they were locked up in -- "Threaten me all you want, but there's four things you don't mess around with, so far as I'm concerned: my family, my money, my car, or my house after dark, as any of those could get you hurt and some of them will get you killed." So, do anyone you should send a favor and tell them (a) it's really preferred that they don't come at night (things get "confused" in the dark sometimes, especially me when I'm rudely awakened and angry and armed), (b) to at least come in pairs if not platoons, (c) to have a properly executed warrant or expect to be denied entry, forcibly if necessary, and (d) to bring a lunch. Because, even if they abide by all that, it's still probably going to be what we sometimes used to call it in the Army, a long and messy day.

[Subtitle: And the survey says...]

White House Communications Director Anita "I love Mao Tse Tung" Dunn says that FOX News is "an arm of the Republican Party." And White House Chief of Staff Rahm "run amok" Emanuel and top advisor David "door-to-door salesman" Axelrod say that FOX News is not really news but only opinion. Oh, and add in that Obama Press Secretary Robert "frat boy" Gibbs' best defense that FOX News is only about opinion has been that that's the White House's opinion -- huh? -- and you have a pretty full-on attack against FOX News.

However, a recent survey funded by the nonpartisan League of American Voters revealed some interesting results. These data come from a national telephone survey taken by the Global Marketing Research Center in Melbourne, Florida, during the week of October 13-16, 2009. The survey was taken from a statistically valid national sample of 800 registered voters, 36% of whom said they voted for more Democrats than Republicans, while 32% said they voted for more Republicans and 24% said they voted equally for each party.

It appears that Democratic and Independent voters clearly beg to differ with Ms. Dunn et al. The national survey shows that 46% of those who watch FOX News "just about every day" are -- guess what? -- Democrats or Independents, as are 50% of those who watch it "several times each week" or more. Now, why would that many Democrats and Independents be watching "an arm of the Republican Party" which only deals not in real news but only in opinion? The obvious answer is they wouldn't. They are apparently watching because they are getting "news" from FOX News which they feel they are not getting from other so-called "news" outlets, both TV and print.

Overall, the survey showed that 21% of all American voters watched FOX News every day and 18% watched it several times each week. So, combined, 39% watched the station several times each week or more.

• Among Democrats, 17% watched it several times each week or more

• Among Independents, 46% watched the station several times each week or more

• Among Republicans, 55% tuned in several times each week or more

The survey indicated that 11% of all American voters watched CNN "just about every day" and 20% watched several times each week or more. Combined, 31% watched CNN several times each week or more.

The totals for MSNBC were that only 10% watched just about every day and 8% watched several times each week. Combined, 18% watched MSNBC several times each week or more.

These data, compared to the recent storm of White House criticism, shows the Administration attacks on FOX News in a different perspective. Could it be that Team Obama is concerned about FOX News not because it's "an arm of the Republican Party" but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?

The frontal assault on FOX News by Dunn and the two top spokesmen for the Administration, plus Obama himself dismissively saying he's not losing much sleep over it all (maybe not, but why then do you send your minions out to do your dirty work?), reveals much less about FOX's operation than it does about just how obsessed this thin-skinned and arrogant president is with his coverage.

He wants it all, or he feels "slighted." Evidently, only absolute adoration, all the time, by everyone is sufficient. How really deeply insecure does one have to be for that to be the case? He's got (and has long had) all the liberal lamestream media in his pocket (or, since they've been behaving like his lapdogs, is that in his lap?), with FOX News having been the only major holdout.

But at least this most recent foray by the Obama attack dogs has coincidentally finally given us something Obama has promised since the campaign but has repeatedly not delivered on -- transparency. The White House attack on FOX News is so transparently just that, an unwarranted attack (as evidenced by the survey cited here), and it has been done with such heavy-handed clumsiness that it mostly shows what amateur hour at the White House from the top down really looks like. A peek behind the Wizard of Oz curtain, if you will, to reveal how small the little man hiding there really is. Thank goodness for small favors.....oh, and some transparency, finally -- albeit coincidental, accidental and unintended. Thank you, Mr. Petty President.

[A friend of mine sent me this information via email. It is not sourced, so I don't know who originated it. If I did, I would give them credit. But I have the idea that, whoever they are, they would want it widely shared anyway, so, in a slightly modified format, that's what I'm doing.]
 
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Republic of Athens some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
 
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
 
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
 
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations, from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years." 

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
 
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
 
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
 
3. from courage to liberty;
 
4. from liberty to abundance;
 
5. from abundance to complacency;
 
6. from complacency to apathy;
 
7. from apathy to dependence;
 
8. from dependence back into bondage"

[Smart man, that Professor Tyler -- almost Nostradamian in his "predictions" about modern day America, huh? But then, remember that Tyler was looking back at the Athenian Republic, wasn't he? So, he wasn't realy "predicting" anything in particular about the United States of today, just about the course of democratic republics (the kind we have, by the way) in general. Maybe the important lesson to be learned (or relearned) here, then, is that old axiom that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.]
 
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, also points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
 
Number of states won by Democrats: 19; Republicans: 29
 
Square miles of land won by Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
 
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
 
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phases of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
 
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to 12 - 20 million criminal invaders called illegal immigrants and they vote, then we can say good-bye to the USA as we have known it -- in fewer than five years.
 
Remember: Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

(Well, that is, you've heard about this unless you only get your "news" from MSNBC, NBC or the New York Times. Then, whether you live under a rock and have TV or not, you may not have heard a thing about it. Actually, that goes for most of the liberal lamestream media, once again failing to do their job in keeping the American public informed about the whackos in our government.)

Now it comes out that Ron Bloom, Obama’s new manufacturing czar, in speaking to the 6th Annual Distressed Investing Forum, in February 2008, is also a member of Obama's Mao Tse Tung Fan Club:

“Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they are convinced that there is a free lunch. We know that this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it, that if you want a friend, you should get a dog.”  (Emphasis added.)

Wow! Makes you wonder just how many other Mao Tse Tung fans there are among Obama's appointees, advisors, fellow travelers, henchmen and enablers, doesn't it? Let's see, Mao was, ummm, a Communist, right? That's Communist, with a capital "C." You know, those guys who, whether they were internal and domestic or external and foreign, the United States has always seen as enemies to our values, our way of life and our liberties.

So, with Obama already having displayed more of a penchant for czars than the Russian royal Romanoffs could ever have even hoped for and senior Obama advisors and appointees being so fond of Mao, what kind of people does that mean are running "our" government right now? Hmmm, just as Glenn Beck of Fox News said, oligarchy is the term which comes to mind.

Merriam-Webster - Oligarchy:
1. government by the few
2. government in which a small group exercises control, especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also a group exercising such control
3. an organization under oligarchic control

So, taking definition number 2 and applying it to the Obumbler and his coterie of liberal socialist-communist admirers-sympathizers, what's to worry, right? Uh, right?

Darvin Dowdy, in his Townhall.com blog Street Level, recently wrote the article "Who's Crazy Enough to Oppose Obama in 2012?" in which he suggested perhaps Glenn Beck.

My comments:

Although I understand you're just throwing spaghetti against the wall at this point, I agree with other commenters who say Beck is probably unelectable, as well as those who say he's probably doing just what he needs to be doing, both now and in the future, in exposing and questioning things as an "outsider."

However, you do us all a good service by providing the focus and raising the issue of: If not Beck, then who? And, I agree with you and others, it "don't look pretty out there." Between libs who run to the center only to govern from the left, Blue Dogs, RINOs, so-called moderate conservatives, conservative moderates, yadda, yadda, yadda, it's hard to tell all the leopards by their spots, especially when they go behind the Wizard of Oz curtain after getting elected and DO change their spots after all.

As much as I love Palin (and I just love the very IDEA of Palin and how twisted up she got the liberal lamestream media, as well as other libs, to pull their hair out -- or at least run around like it was on fire), she needs to do a lot of serious prep on multiple subjects before being a serious front-runner. She's got the right instincts and common sense but needs some in-depth prep as well, And, so far as I can tell, she's not doing that right now. She is the kind of firebrand with star power that we need, but she also needs more than that, especially at the top of a ticket. Obama used his star power, along with his lawyerly parsing of language and soaring but insubstantial rhetoric to slick talk his way in, and we all see where that's gotten us -- even those of us who saw it coming as far back as the Summer of '08.

I also agree -- Pawlenty, Jindal, Huckabee, Romney, etc. -- capable, smart, experienced -- but yawn, yawn, yawn. All good second tier candidates for VP, but not any exciting (read: motivating) star power, much less being a firebrand, among them. DeMint could possibly be an exception, but even there, so far, I haven't seen the type of fire in the belly I'm looking for. Jeb Bush would probably be another one, but I think he's just doomed (however unfairly) by his last name alone.

We need an experienced person who is a good speaker and debater, who is plain-talking, hard-fisted, take no prisoners, call 'em like I see 'em, let the chips fall where they may, almost apolitical person but who knows how to play politics with the best of them. A combination of Sarah Palin charm and star power, former ambassador John Bolton plainspokenness, Harry Truman directness, Abe Lincoln brevity, Ronald Reagan delivery, with maybe a little Southern preacher firebrand and Mitt Romney presidential good looks thrown in for good measure. Someone who would look directly at Katie Couric during an interview, smile and say, "Katie, I'm offended by that question," or would call Chris Matthews out for the liberal lapdog that he is while appearing on his own show, or would briefly but clearly explain after the Charlie Gibson interview that Charlie obviously hadn't understood his own question about which part of the still evolving (at that point in time, at least three-part) so-called "Bush doctrine" he had wanted me to respond to.

OMG! IMNSHO, I just described ..... MYSELF! ..... but from about 15 years or so ago. Just kidding. Anyway, that's the kind of person I'm looking and hoping for. Not just some warmed over "moderate" Republican or pseudo-conservative, but a real conservative who is (even more of a liberal's worst nightmare) also a Federalist and a Constitutionalist.

What's more disturbing is that this was the only vote you missed that day. You voted on each of the amendments that preceded the ACORN defunding vote and you voted on final passage of the bill, a vote that followed just 10 minutes later

Did you, as the president seems fond of saying, have to go wee-wee in that 10 minutes? I would think you could have managed to be present for a vote against further federal subsidies for an organization which is under federal investigation in about a dozen states for voter registration fraud, which violated its tax-exempt, nonprofit, nonpartisan status by openly supporting a candidate (Obama) during the campaign and which now has been caught in numerous instances of enabling child prostitution.

Instead, you were absent for a vote (the ONLY one you missed) that every Member knew was coming. Did you think, since you knew you couldn't really justify voting to continue federal funding for ACORN (as 75 of your fellow Democrats evidently think they can), that it was "smart politics" just to absent yourself from the vote and not take a stand at all?