My Fair American

There has been a lot of serious talk about the president's speech tonight. It seems as if both sides are getting a bit heated. And that union leader went too far in his condemnation of conservatives. Even ABC news went after Obama for not denouncing the guy. What we need is to ease up a bit though I doubt if Obama could do it. Actually if he were as politically smart as he thinks he is he would start the speech today with the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you imagine the visual impact that would have? But he would never do that, it's too politically charged what with that"God" reference.





Anyway, on a much lighter note, as I listened to pundits debate about tonight I was suddenly reminded of one of the lesser known songs from My Fair Lady. The song is called "Show Me" and is sung by a woman who, well, let the lyrics speak for themselves and for how I feel about Obama and his job speech tonight: "Words! Words! I'm so sick of words! First from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do? ... Make me no undying vow. Show me now! Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme! Don't waste my time, Show me! Don't talk of June, Don't talk of fall! Don't talk at all! Show me!
Never do I ever want to hear another word. There isn't one I haven't heard! Show me!" You see why I thought of this song?!

I took another look at My Fair Lady and found that there is a more famous song from this musical which also applies to America today. It is the very first song in the musical in which Henry Higgins deplores the way the common Englishmen speaks. Turn it around for Americans and the Hispanics and it hits the mark with such lines as: "An American's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks he makes some other American despise him. One common language I'm afraid we'll never get, Oh, why can't the American learn to set a good example to people whose English is painful to your ears... Why can't all Americans learn to speak?"






I also discovered a song that is a good fit for President Obama by just substituting the word "spent" for the word "dance" . Here is a brief look at those new lyrics: "I could have spent all night, I could have spent all night and still have spent some more." Yup sounds like our President!

Of course the fun song "With A Little Bit of Luck" is perfect just the way it is (if you're union or maybe a progressive, that is). The first few lines tell it all: "The Lord above gave man an arm of iron, So he could do his job and never shirk. The Lord gave man an arm of iron-but, With a little bit of luck, With a little bit of luck, Someone else'll do the blinkin' work!"






There are other songs but I'll include only one more from My Fair Lady. Simply change the premise to be a song sung by people who voted for Obama but are now disillusioned. With that in mind the first stanza is also perfect as it is and nothing needs to be change: " What a fool I was, what a dominated fool, to think that you were the earth and the sky, What a fool I was, What an elevated fool, What a mutton-headed dote was I! No, my reverberated friend, you are not the beginning and the end." Oh yes, a perfect fit indeed!






- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A Not So Big Job Plan

Happy Labor Day Weekend to all of you who actually have jobs. For those without one, well, help should be coming soon if you believe that Obama will be announcing a new jobs plan to the Joint Houses next week. It has to be really big, right? Why else would the President ask to speak to both Houses, something usually reserved for the annual State of the Union, declaring war or some other monumental reason.




Except I've noticed something about our president. He doesn't really care. Remember this is the man who voted "Present" while in the Senate rather than care one way or another about an issue. Sure he gives great speech but take away the teleprompter and his passion is as solid as the smoke from his cigarette, wavering then disappearing entirely. Good thing for us.

What of Obamacare you ask. Sure, he wanted the Health Care Plan but not enough to sit down and work out a plan or even give many guidelines to the Democratically controlled House and Senate. I actually think we have it wrong, it is not so much Obamacare as it is Pelosicare. She and the still, but not for long, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the ones who pushed this abomination through their respective houses. Obama just sat in the Oval Office letting his minions do all his work for him then he took credit for it.



This upcoming "big" speech on jobs is a great example. First it is way over due and yet this spring he finally realizes that it is one of the most urgent issues he has. Then he decides that this urgent issue isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait until everyone comes back from the August vacation. But wait. Now it so urgent again that it just had to be given next Wednesday. Oh, the Republicans have a presidential debate at the Reagan Library planned for months on that same date? Gee what a coincident. (Wink wink, nudge, nudge, let's mess with the Republicans).

Except for the first time in history, that I know of, a president's request to meet with both Houses was turned down. Some say that Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House was disrespectful to the office of the presidency. Maybe. But it could also be said that Obama was using his office to play politics and simply screw the Republicans.

It says something about the people around Obama that no one had the foresight to wonder what would be the ramifications if Boehner said no.



Is Obama and his team that arrogant or simply that stupid? So when Boehner did say no, they were basically left with their asses hanging in the wind and after much sputtering and posturing, the President's team said he would give his speech on Thursday, not Wednesday. In this game of political chicken it was Obama who blinked.

The thing is, the President could have won that petty fight if he really cared. If he showed he passionately believed he had to give that speech on Tues, not Weds and stood up to Boehner with the full force of the presidency behind him then Beohner would have acquiesced . But he didn't really care. It was just a political game and Obama was the one who caved once again.

Or Obama could have said he would give the speech on Wednesday but from the Oval Office not in front of Congress. Of course the problem with that idea is that this time around what he says isn't going to be as important as how it will look to the public. Obama wants to be seen angrily lecturing Republicans, looking all stern while he shakes his finger as they must sit there. On the other hand, he wants to camera to show the enthusiastic Democrats leaping to their feet applauding their wonderful leader. It's all a show folks.



When I said what he will say won't matter, well, funny thing about that speech. I just saw a clip where it showed Obama early this summer saying he would give a "specific plan" on creating new jobs, then mid summer he said he will present a plan but no more promises of details and now it is being touted as an outline with the full plan and details to be determined after he talks to the people. Wait a minute. Didn't he just have that bus tour to do exactly that? So now this "big" speech is nothing more than a campaign stunt; to screw the Republicans, make them look bad and himself good and then to set himself up for more campaign tours under the auspices of discussing jobs. Yup it's nothing but Obama once again stating one big "present" with nothing solid behind it at all. Personally I'm not even going to bother to tune in - turns out that by moving the speech to Thursday it is now up against the kickoff NFL season. Go Packers!



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Cheaters

When I was in school I always hated the teachers who would punish an entire classroom just because a handful of students misbehaved. I think this was my first glimpse that life wasn't fair. And I didn't like it one bit.

Unfortunately once grownup, the miscreants and cheaters became even more numerous and in some instances more flagrant in their behavior.


Except instead of a teacher, the authority they are trying to cheat is our government. And like my teachers of yesteryear, the government punishes all of us through new laws and taxes because of the few people trying to beat the system. Just think how many laws would be unnecessary if people followed even half of the ten commandments. Or what if everyone had to pay x% of their income or $100 whichever is greater. No loopholes, no excuses for the rich, and it makes the 50% who don't pay any taxes chip in a small amount, to be fair, of course.

What got me thinking about this were two stories in the news this week. First, more people are claiming SSI disability pay than in the past and the government is concerned and plans to investigate. The next day, completely unassociated with the earlier story, there was yet another headline about someone cheating the government of disability pay.


This time it was a fireman who was collecting full disability pay yet they showed clips of him participating in some kind of mixed martial arts fight. The government investigated and found him able to return to work. But his fireman's union disagrees and continue to pay him roughly $70,000 to not work!

People who abuse the system just infuriate me. As most know, I am disabled and it would be impossible for me to return to work. Yet because of all the past and current cheaters, I am being punished. I had to fight first our government then the insurance company for them to recognize that, yes, I really am disabled. Out of everything I went through, and I went through a lot, perhaps what bothered me the most was the accusation behind their actions that I, too, was a cheat and a liar trying to beat the system. Even now, I feel as if I have to defend why I really am disabled and apologize for not working.

The news story about the increase in disability claims actually blamed it on cheaters. They said this increase didn't make sense as the country is healthier than in the past. Yet I don't think that being healthy and being disabled are necessarily the same. I haven't had a cold or the flu in years; but I can't sit up, stand or walk for more than a few hours a day. Plus as everyone knows, the population is aging so of course there will be more disabled people.


Unfortunately, the government is predisposed to think everyone is like that fireman, out to beat the system. Now, all that will happen are more laws or requirements making it even more difficult for those of us who really are disabled to qualify for disability pay.

Life isn't fair. Thanks to the cheaters who abuse the system, we will continue to be burdened with unnecessary laws and harassed by the government and other people who wonder if we are cheaters, too. And I still don't like it one bit!





- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Not My Fault

After a long weekend of silence the president finally came out of his office to discuss S&P's ratings downgrade. He might as well have stayed in his office for all the help he was. At one point I did start to get excited when he said "I have a plan.." thinking he was finally going to produce his own plan to reduce the debt but no, the whole sentence was "I have a plan on how to proceed." Gee thanks. And it seemed as if his great plan was for the committee proposed by the new debt bill to determine what to do. Why bother? He already has a plan from his first debt committee.




Last year he commissioned a bipartisan committee of primarily retired (I think) Congressmen to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit. And they did. Their 59 page Bowles Simpson report would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion while also lowering the tax rate! Unfortunately it had one fatal flaw.

This concise well thought out plan had the nerve to propose increasing the age for Social Security and making cuts to Medicare. So, true to form, the Democrats refused to let this plan even get out of committee. And yet during his speech Obama lectured Congress on the need for compromise. Maybe it's just the other side that needs to compromise.



For Obama, compromise certainly doesn't include any changes to his proposed fair share tax - you know the one where he sticks it to the rich to redistribute their wealth to the poor. Nope, no compromise on that but he did offer to look at "a modest adjustment to health care..." (and, in spite of the word "modest", I still got excited wondering if he actually cut back Obamacare?) "... like Medicare". Damn Disappointed again.



S&P dropped our ratings on Friday and the next day a memo must have gone to Democrats for by Sunday every liberal was calling the S&P move "the Tea Party downgrade". Of course, blame it on the Tea Party. I had hoped that the president would be above this type of petty politics. Not exactly. He didn't come out and name the Tea Party but he definitely insinuated them a lot.

At one point he talked about how defaulting on the debt was used as a bargaining chip which could do enormous damage. Another time he said the debt problem was "not due to a lack of a plan but due to lack of political will, the insistence in drawing lines and the refusal to put what is best for the country ahead of self interest, or party or ideology". Yup, that's the Tea Party, those terrible men and women with principles they believe in.

But why are liberals afraid of the Tea Party? Democrats still hold two of the three branches, not to mention most of the media. Republicans only have a majority in the House and within that are the small coalition known as the Tea Party. Out of all the men and women running the country or reporting on it the Tea Party is a very small group. And yet the President and every other Liberal are afraid of them and the media spends a disproportionate time bashing them. So why?




Thinking about this question I keep seeing the image of Toto pulling back the curtain and revealing the "great and powerful Wizard of Oz". That's the power of the Tea Party citizens. Ever since the mortgage crisis and stimulus bills people have been confronting their politicians and demanding answers. OMG. Citizens actually wanting to hold their representatives and senators accountable for their actions. How dare they. Well they dare alright! And we will continue to hold them accountable for fixing this debt mess.

As for the Tea Party politicians? Well let me quote a Democrat friend of mine. He recently said he didn't necessarily agree with them but he admired the fact that Tea Party politicians were willing to stand on their principles even if it meant not be re-elected next year. Wow. Too bad more Democrats don't feel that way.

One last thought. Every Democrat, including the president, was either blaming the Tea Party or else insinuating that Standard & Poors were wrong. These politicians adamantly stated that the US didn't deserve this downgrade or that S&P miscalculated. No. We did deserve this wake up call. But how typical of the liberals to either say the information was wrong or else blame it on somebody else. Never have I heard any Democrat own up to even a part of the downgrade. Sadly, not even President Obama showed any leadership. No "the buck stops here" with him. To them accountability is a dirty word. No wonder they fear the Tea Party!

*Double click on a graph to view them bigger

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

No Confidence

I wasn't planning on writing this soon but the banker in me just had to bring up the new banking trend. Some of the biggest US banks began to inform their clients today on a new fee. In the past, if you had millions to deposit you looked for the bank that paid the highest interest rate, right? No more. Instead the new trend is to charge the customer a fee to deposit their money at the bank!

That's right, the rich, businesses or anyone wanting to deposit millions will have to pay for the privilege of banking at one of the bigger banks.





You thought the rediculously small interest paid on savings, money market accounts or CDs was bad - now customers and businesses have to pay the banks to hold their millions! You're better off putting it under your mattress.

I hate to admit this, but as a former banking consultant I can understand why banks are doing this. Basically there is too much cash floating around as investors are getting out of the stock market and real estate. In fact money is so prevalent that the Federal Reserve is charging the few banks that need to borrow money an interest rate of 0%. Yup, it is free to borrow but that isn't the problem, the problem is too much money.

Not to get too technical but banks have to balance out their Assets which are loans and cash on hand vs. their Liabilities of deposits and stocks.







Too much deposits and they can't make enough loans to balance it out. Businesses today are afraid to get new loans as the economy is uncertain and they are afraid of the future impact of Obamacare. There are few mortgages as no one is buying houses and the few customers who try for a loan are turned down as banks are being very strict. So banks can't turn the big deposits into loans today.

In today's economy, banks interest margin (the rates they collect on loans minus the rate they pay out on deposits)has been smaller and smaller. And now they can't even turn around and loan out the big deposits to earn even a small interest fee. Banks are making up that lost income by now charging customers a fee to hold their large deposits.

So I understand why this sort of makes sense from the bank's point of view. But I worry about the bigger picture. I don't like that we have all this excess cash. It is scary to think that people and companies are not investing in our future nor are banks helping out individuals or small businesses with loans.

Some analyst reviewing today's 512 drop in the stock market said it was a vote of no confidence in our future. I agree. For how can you blame anyone for shying away from investing in the stock market after the last few days of free fall and the jump in gold? Not to forget that Washington just agreed to more spending and more debt.

How do we turn our economy around? How do we give our citizens, and big and small businesses confidence in our future?


Unfortunately, does anyone truly believe our economy and unemployment will get any better considering who is in the White House? Or will confidence return only after we get a true leader? Preferably someone with real business acumen, someone who knows how to live on a budget like the rest of us do. Most of all, we need a leader who understands how to give Americans and American businesses the freedom to succeed or even to fail, then learn from it and come back stronger and wiser. Until then, add my voice in with all the others who are starting to shout "No confidence!"

Location:home

Debt Doldrums

I am back. Or for those who hadn't noticed, PC Fugitive has been down for nearly a year due to technical problems. But switching from my PC to my new IPad and adding a blog app and I am finally back in business. Yeah!

The funny thing, however, is that even if I could write I am not sure how much I would have. It just all seems so redundant.



The Democrats want more spending and would increase taxes to pay for some of it while the Republicans, led by the Tea Party, want less spending and fewer taxes and to not raise the dent ceiling. But as we all know now, after months of bitter arguing the debt ceiling was raised, some new spending approved but thanks to the Tea Party there are no new taxes. Yet.

When the president gave a short speech about the new debt ceiling he primarily talked about how we would pay it off. Once again he talked about taxing the rich through new taxes, closing loopholes or taxing luxury items like corporate jets. It's probably a losing battle but let me try one more time to explain why Obama is totally wrong, again.

First, the United States top 10% wealthiest citizens pays 45.1% of all income


taxes. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html) This is more than any other industrialized nation. In France, the top 10% richest payed just 28% while in England it was 38.6% of all personal income taxes. So our richest citizens are already paying substantiously more than their counterparts yet the Democrats want to take even more money from them! We can't let that happen.

As for taxing luxury items, doesn't anyone remember the Carter years? Jimmy had the same idea except instead of going after jets he added a new tax on luxury boats. And guess what happened? The rich stopped buying boats and then all across New England's coast people were suddenly jobless.


No one bought boats so skilled shipmakers were let go. Docks that relied on docking fees were empty. The businesses that catered to the people who were now unemployed started to go bankrupt. So basically the only people hurt by that luxury tax were the middle class. And I don't know this for sure but it only figures that if fewer luxury boats were sold than even with the higher tax rate the government probably collected less tax dollars on the boats. Typical. Whenever the government tries to interfere they always make things worse!

So what is the solution? I have a few ideas (surprise, surprise) but plenty of time to talk about that another day. And now that I have my new iPad and blog app I have no more excuses for not keeping this up-to-date. So thanks for your patience and welcome back!

Location:Home

I am back. Not only is the following entry my first time back in two months but more importantly it is my 300th PC Fugitive blog. Who knew I had so much to say? Then again we are living in interesting history making times. Over the years I’ve had some hits and some misses but most of all I’ve had a lot of fun. I hope you have, too. So I apologize for the two month absence and thank you for continuing with me all this time. And I have a feeling that the next two years should be a lot more fun than the past two years!

Mid-Term Miracles

After tomorrow’s election there will once again be the refrain by liberals and the far left that Americans are stupid. This is what they said after the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections when their candidate lost. I never understood their reasoning. If the losing side wanted to win the next time around then they needed to convince the other side to vote for their man (or woman). So you would think that insulting the winning side by calling them stupid isn’t exactly the smart way of winning friends and influencing your enemies.

When Obama was elected four years later, surprise, surprise, suddenly the American people were very intelligent. They voted in the right man and life was good again. Not only did Americans elect Obama but the liberals hit the Trifecta, dominating the Presidency, the House and the Senate. Plus in the first two years, this new President picked two new politically correct Supreme Court Justices and if there were potential problems with other Presidential appointees then Obama just bypassed Senate’s consent and called them Czars. Oh life was good for liberals.

But a funny thing happened, the American people started to lose IQ points over the past two years, or at least thats what Democrats would have you believe. Even worse, the lower the IQ, the louder these people became. They had the nerve to not quietly sit back but to actually take action and without anyone’s help! They might have been better managed if they had kept to the Republican Party where old-timers knew how to squelch loud bothersome newcomers. But they even surprised the GOP by gathering under their own name – the Tea Party.

The Tea Party might have fizzled out after that first summer of discontent when they protested about Obamacare, disrupting town hall meetings with their sharp questioning. After the Senate and House still passed their health care plan, arrogantly ignoring a large and growing segment of the population, the Tea Party should have died out. They lost. Shut Up. Move on. But people didn’t move on. Instead they became angrier. Even worse for the politicians, they took names and took action.

The Tea Party nonetheless still could have died out if it weren’t for the actions of two people. They are not the founding fathers of the party but they were the nursemaids, nurturing and encouraging Tea Party enthusiasts. They gave it a legitimate platform and a voice. The first person of course is Sarah Palin; the darling of the conservatives and the laughingstock of the liberals. After being continuously embarrassed by the Mainstream Media (MSM) this woman had the audacity to not go away; just the opposite actually. By all rights, after the trouncing she got by the MSM and the truly awful Couric interview, she should have slunk back to Alaska never to be heard from again. Instead Palin left the relatively obscure position of Alaska’s Governor, wrote a book and hit the lecture circuit.

This is the first time I can recall that a politician refused to let the MSM win. Remember Dan Quayle? Probably not if you’re under 50. He was the first Bush’s VP and his falling out with the MSM was over the spelling of potato. He thought there was an e at the end. They hounded the man showering nonstop ridicule on him for weeks and weeks over a simple misspelling. They broke him and he disappeared, never to be heard from again. So give credit where credit is due – Palin refused to back down. Instead she and the Tea Party grew stronger together.

The other Tea Party nursemaid is Glenn Beck. Here was the ideal meeting of a man and a movement, each backing the other to untold fame and infamy. Glenn Beck did for the Tea Party what Pat Robertson did for the Moral Majority and President Nixon for the Silent Majority. And just like Palin, he has been totally villified by the MSM, and labeled extreme, even mad.

What did Beck do to earn the wrath of liberals? He told conservatives that they are not alone. That they shouldn’t feel disheartened by the news they hear each day from the MSM. Instead they needed to understand that if they banded together they would have the power to take over the country. In encouraging this group he also was forthright in describing the other side, the interweaving of liberal groups and people in DC, Hollywood, New York and now Chicago. In many ways, Beck turns today’s politics into a morality play bringing back old fashioned morals, religion and patriotism with clear cut heroes and villains.

On Tuesday November 2nd Americans are going to take a stand and say to the President and his party “No more”. The MSM will once again call these Americans stupid. And they are led in this chorus by none other than our President. In a speech at a small fundraising party last month in West Newton MA, Obama said: "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared, and the country's scared.” He went on to say that he faulted the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.”

Obama just doesn’t get it and that scares me. We are frustrated because Obama, Reid and Pelosi don’t listen to the majority of the country and we are afraid of what they will do next. Saying we don’t understand the facts isn’t helping. He is the one who isn’t understanding the situation. He has repeatedly said that perhaps part of the problem is that he could have better communicated what they were doing. OMG. This man does nothing but communicate. We heard you already Mr Obama and November 2nd is our reply.

I want to hope that he will then act like Bill Clinton who, when faced with a similar mid-term situation, became more centrix and worked with Speaker of the House Gingrich to implement bills that helped the country. But I doubt it. A recent speech had Obama calling conservatives “the enemy”. And he ended his speech in MA by predicting even more partisanship and gridlock in Congress. “I don’t anticipate that getting better next year,” he said at the fundraiser. “I anticipate that getting worse.” He said he needs Democrats in the Senate “because every bit of progress that we need to make is going be a matter of grinding it out.” Nice attitude, Mr. President. So much for bipartisanship.

One more thing. In addition to calling Tea Party candidates and their followers “stupid” you can be sure that the MSM and liberals will also label them “extreme” and they will endlessly worry about the future of our country after this historical midterm election. Funny. Although I have frequently been proud of my country, for the first time in a long time, unlike the media, I am not nearly as worried about my country’s future as I was yesterday.

The Tea Party - the Voice of the Silent Majority

I find it very interesting to watch the evolution of the conservatives emergence into today’s Tea Party. The modern day revolt of the middle class began in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Your average folks out in the suburbs and farms were aghast at the chaos all around him. Everywhere they looked people were rioting – college kids burning draft cards, dope smoking (or worse) hippies, inner city riots were destroying and burning their own parts of town, women were burning bras and everyone was beginning to question the Vietnam War. The Silent Majority were stunned into silence by all that was happening around them.

While the Democrats were mired in the violence of their 1968 convention Nixon stepped out at the Republican convention to be the voice of the right . To rail against all these changes and try to stand up for the conservative values that were being carelessly tossed aside by other groups with louder voices. And when Nixon ran for a second term it was a rout with Nixon trouncing the very liberal McGovern with 97% of the electoral vote and 62% of the popular vote! The Silent Majority had spoken in full volume!

As everyone knows, Nixon let his power get to him, and resigned in disgrace. The Silent Majority was disillusioned by this betrayal and stayed away from the polls in 1972 thereby letting Jimmy Carter become the next president. Conservatives believed that under Carter's mismanagment the country continued to slide to the left and was headed for economic disaster, inflation and double digit unemployment. Finally conservatives shook off their paralysis after Nixon’s betrayal of their trust and began to pull together but this time under a new name and a true leader.

One of the few places the Silent Majority felt comfortable in speaking out was in their churches. Yet even that was being taken away from them by liberal ministers and priests who preached social justice and liberation theories. It was no wonder that conservatives flocked to the new TV televangelists who preached Christianity and conservative values. It was a message the right were starved for after two decades of liberals progressive actions.

The Silent Majority found their voices in their churches and became the Moral Majority. Ronald Reagan was their leader and conservatism was once again back in fashion. Not just lower taxes and less government but also a new emphasis on restoring some semblance of old fashioned values combined with a resurgence in American pride and patriotism.

Unfortunately, just as Nixon’s betrayal broke up the Silent Majority, it was the televangelists’ downfalls with women and taxes and unaccounted for riches that dismantled the Moral Majority. The end of Reagan's two terms was another factor in the lessening of the Moral Majority's powers.

Conservatives were then disappointed by the Bushes actions. Bush father’s increasing taxes after his “Read my lips, no new taxes” statement was his downfall and again conservatives weren't passionate about re-electing him. So we got Clinton who was actually good for the economy and conservatives didn't put up a huge fight, with poor candidates running against Clinton during his second election. But it was Bill's morals that concerned people and helped elect Bush W. After 9-11 everyone was behind how he handled the terrorist attacks on 9-11 and conservatives applauded his tax cuts. But Bush W. disenfranchised the right with his big government spending. This past president abandoned a primary conservative tenant of smaller government as he spent us into debt. As the economy became worse he spent even more to bail out banks and provide stimulus money. It was completely against everything conservatives stood for and they were dumbfounded by Bush’s betrayal.

When Obama was elected and began to spend even more money the conservatives felt hamstrung since one of their own Republicans had spent a lot during the last presidency. Democrats said conservatives were hypocrites if they complained about Obama’s spending after Bush spent, too. But Obama, Pelosi and Reid continued to push and push their liberal agenda finally passing a health care bill that no one understood and few people, other than the far left, really wanted. It was too much too soon. Finally, realizing that they were being blatently ignored by their own politicians was the last straw for the people.

This time around, conservatives and even many independents found their political voice with protests followed by confronting politicians during town hall meetings in the summer of 2009. People found their politicians to be so far removed from their constituency that they were no longer representing them. Getting no satisfaction from the current group of politicians, conservatives took the final step and entered the political realm with a vengeance. Faster then anyone anticipated, Tea Party candidates entered the mid-term elections with resolve to replace these old politicians and to everyone's surprise they had the votes to do so. They toppled big name Republicans who were RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) such as in Florida and won what everyone thought would be unwinable elections such as the MA senate race to replace Ted Kennedy and this week’s Delaware Republican primary win by a Tea Party new politician. To date, Tea Party candidates have won Senate primaries in KY, AZ, AK, CO, NV and DE.

A new political force is being born right in front of our eyes. Yet Democrats continue to be contemptuous of this newfound group and even smugly pleased by the Tea Party’s foray into the mid-term election. Liberals don’t believe these conservative amateur candidates can win in a general election and so they feel that the Senate will retain their Democrat majority. But again, they don’t have a clue as to what is really happening. This is an explosion that has been building for 30 years. Not only have the people found their voice but they are stepping up and taking control. Nixon and the Bush’s betrayed them and there is no Reagan like leader in sight so the average guy is entering the political ring for the first time. And just as importantly, the masses are throwing their support to these Tea Party candidates. For example, this week’s Delaware primary typically had around 30,000 people voting – this week it had 57,000 voters with the majority coming out to support the Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell who actually beat the old time Republican politician. That is a huge difference in turnout for just a primary. As I said in an earlier blog, this is not a gentle tidal wave of change, this is a tsunami heading our way in November. Finally, the Silent Majority are truly silent no more.

How to Respond to Muslim Blackmail and Threats

In 1983 President Reagan gave a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando Florida. This is the speech in which he first called Russia an “evil empire”. According to Wikipedia, Reagan also made a case in this speech for deploying NATO nuclear armed missiles in Western Europe in response to the Soviet Union installing new nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe. Liberals had a cow. They were terrified that Russia would retaliate somehow. They thought that Reagan was rash to provoke the communists not only with words but then with the actual placement of nuclear missiles. Liberals moved the hand of the doomsday clock a bit closer to 12 as they anxiously worried that the USSR would retaliate against what Reagan said in that speech.

Luckily the Democrats weren’t running the country and instead we had President Reagan. This great leader presented a determined front and not once back downed when confronted with Russia’s blackmail threats to harm us if we didn’t remove our missiles or abandon the idea of a Star Wars defense or even arrogantly used terms like the evil empire. There was also a huge uprising from the UN and other countries but our leader, unlike the clamoring liberals, was not afraid of what anyone else might think of us; Reagan basically could care less and kept to his path of standing up for America. Of course we all know now that it was Russia who blinked in this cold war and the course of history changed dramatically including the fall of the Berlin Wall pictured left. But what would have happened if Reagan was fearful of Russian retaliation and, like the Democrats, worried that Americans might be killed and therefore gave in to Russia’s threats? How different might history be if Reagan didn’t have the fortitude to identify Russia for what it was – an evil empire that needed to be destroyed.

If this country had the guts to go toe-to-toe against a large country with nuclear weapons then why can’t we stand up to a bunch of street rabble with stones, homemade explosives and a few guns? Please understand that I don’t agree with Rev. Terry Jones who plans to burn the Quran in retaliation of 9-11. But this is America where he has the right to do this just as liberals and anarchists have the right to burn the flag. I hope the Reverend will decide that it is wrong but it would be more harmful in the long run if he backed down because of threats from Muslims worldwide.

I am deeply disappointed in General Petraeus for passing on the Muslims threats of harming our soldiers if Rev. Jones goes forward with his book burning. This is blackmail, pure and simple and the US should never back down to it. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that the threats were issued by street rabble rousers, probably the same Arabs who were cheering in the street after 9-11. We must not empower this group which is exactly what would happen if Rev. Jones backs down because of their threats. So shame on the General for even giving voice to their blackmail threats.

If we back down to their threats then we have established a very harmful pattern. For what will we back down to next? There is a lot of passion and anger over the building of the mosque in NY City. What would happen if General Petraeus gets on TV to tell us that Muslims are threatening to kill soldiers if we don’t let them build the mosque? Do we back down then?

Actually, the two events are very similar. Muslims can build the mosque in NYC but it would be wrong and insensitive to Americans while on the other hand Rev. Jones can burn the Quran but that also would be wrong and insensitive to the Muslims. The difference, however, is that Americans might protest in the streets about the mosque but it never would even occur to us to take to the streets threatening to kill Muslims if they don’t move the proposed mosques. Yet no one thinks twice about Arabs taking to the street in protest with burning effigies and threatening to kill us, this time because of the book burning. Why are they held to a lesser standard than we are?

Reverend Jones is wrong to want to burn the Quran but he is right when he asks when do we stop backing down to them. I also think that once again the mainstream media is slanting the news. I was listening to a local radio talk show and to my surprise all the callers were backing the Reverend. Like me, they didn’t agree with what he planned to do but believed he had the right to do it. And yet the MSM portrays only those protesting against the book burning. In fact the MSM is guilty of escalating the fear of retaliation if the minister burns Qurans on Saturday with the slanted stories they broadcast on their news programs. (It is also interesting to note that the Arab world didn't threaten us like this when Bush was president as I think they feared Bush who they saw as some cowboy who they didn't know what he would do next. Only now when Barrack Hussein Obama is president do they feel free to blackmail us...)

In the light of this standoff – the Rev. threatening to burn the Quran vs. Muslims threatening to kill our soldiers in retaliation if the Quarn is burned – I can’t help but wonder what would Reagan do? Just as Reagan believed the USSR was the evil empire, Rev. Jones believes that Islam and the Quran are evil. Perhaps I am wrong but if Reagan were our president today I can almost hear him state that America has freedom of speech which protects Rev. Jones. Though Reagan may disagree with burning the Quran, if the Middle East street Arabs actually harm one hair on a US soldier in retaliation then Reagan will bomb them back because nobody threatens our soldiers or tries to blackmail us. And if they do then they will regret it. {sigh} I do miss Reagan for instead of a staunch patriot who would stand up for America we have a conciliator and appeasement seeking President and General who apologize for this country and worry about what some thugs might do.. God help us if they manage to force Rev. Jones to back down to the street Arabs threats.

Postscript. Sometimes I amaze myself. I wrote this Weds. afternoon and set it aside as I became busy with other things. Then last night while I watched tennis the Imam in charge of the NY City mosque got on Larry King’s show and sure enough he threatened an explosion of anger and violence if America doesn’t let them build the mosque at that location by Ground Zero. I wish I had gotten this one wrong but here it is, the next threat. Forget the Rev. in Florida with burning the Quran. America is faced with these new threats of violence – now what? General what is your response – do we back down on this, too? And if so, what will come next? Or do we act like proud Americans and tell that Imam and the Arab street rabble that America does not and will never respond to blackmail and threats. Mainly I just wish somebody, anybody in Washington has the nerve, as Reagan did, to basically tell them to go to hell!