Returning to Form/Forming a Return

It has been months since I posted anything on this blog. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that I got married recently. Planning such an event consumes mental energy among other things.

I also stopped posting partly because the "Spirit of 76'" motif that I was utilizing did not serve me well. One day last spring, something occurred to me: politics don't matter, and I have nothing to say about them. At least, not on a regular basis.

This new worldview of mine is rooted in the fact that certain political outcomes seem to be unavoidable even in the face of popular opposition and supposed procedural impossibility. Yes, I am talking about the universal health care bill. I was led to believe that Senator Scott Brown would be "the final vote that would destroy health care". Hence, I drove through a rainstorm to vote for him. Lo, and behold, the bill somehow passed regardless. Who knows what back-alley arm-twisting, threats, and probably-illegal conspiring went into turning the president's certain failure on this issue into a success? Does anyone think it is odd that this bill, once dead in the water, somehow passed?

The experience made me realize that we, as citizens, have absolutely no control over anything that politicians do. Therefore, politics, just like weather, traffic, and natural disasters, are a part of the human experience that we must navigate and negotiate without any hope of changing them for the better.

As a result, why blog about politics? Blogging about politics has become about as useful and interesting as blogging about weather or traffic patterns. To do so occasionally might provoke interest, but to do so constantly will only provoke boredom. We seem fated to slave away under the inept dictatorship of a pack of several hundred suit-wearing numb-skulls, led by a charlatan-in-chief. Heath Ledger's Joker was right: it's all part of the plan. Even once-appreciable members of the opposition have either disappointed me with compromise (Senator Brown) or have become cartoonish, bloated versions of themselves, amping up their rhetoric without much subtlety or effect (Sarah Palin).

What else, then, ought I discuss? There is plenty else. And though I have no faith in politics anymore, I will still return to it occasionally. Politics is not good for one's daily diet. Yet a few political calories might go down nicely occasionally, like a fatty dessert that leaves you wishing afterward that you had not eaten it.

It must be said that political philosophy and geo-politics are far more interesting than American tabloid politics. I would rather discuss the need for stronger relations with India to counter Pakistan than the latest doings of John Edwards' mistress, of Sarah Palin's daughter, of President Obama's stupid lap dogs.

My new blog title retains my inherent old-fashioned, miserable Yankee outlook without being overtly political. Let's see how long my new experiment in blogging lasts. Perhaps it will take root, and perhaps it will be another six months before you read anything new here.

Palin on TV

Sarah Palin is going to have a TV show where she takes viewers around Alaska and shows them the wonder of it.

This is interesting. Is Sarah ruling out any further political ambitions? Not many presidential candidates film reality television series' about their home states. Is she trying to make a buck for her family? It would be understandable, even though the result will be that she will be taken less seriously as a leader. The left-wing media outlets MSNBC and CNN will ensure that people laugh at her for this by employing the usual exagerating and fact-twisting (and if people don't laugh, then, well...MSNBC will say that they are laughing).

Huckabee's foray into TV has had some success, and now Palin is following along. Will they jump back into the political fray in 2012, or will they stay on the tube? It will be fascinating to see how their TV career choices impact their actions and decisions.

It is Finished

The healthcare debate is over. The quasi-socialist Democratic party is rejoicing in the orgasmic throes of victory, having successfully wrested control of the U.S. health insurance industry from the private sector. In a 219-212 vote, the healthcare bill passed. Not a single Republican voted for it.

I am in a blind rage. I can only offer my fragmented thoughts in the following paragraphs. Other more adept pundits have explicated the severity of this situation far more deeply than I ever could. I can only offer you a common man's fury.

The sheer numbers are dizzying. Over ten years, this bill will cost over $900 billion. Subsidized insurance will lead to soaring deficits and higher taxes. President Obama has consistently lied through his teeth about the economic ramifications of his pet project. Do not be taken in. You cannot spend $900 billion and claim that doing so is "deficit neutral".

It is safe to say that the United States will never again in its history be able to pay off the national deficit. We will owe other countries money until the end of our republic's existence (whenever that may be). Our inability to live within our means, and our addiction to the unfabricated concept of an all-powerful, all-helpful federal government, have brought us to this point.

Rest assured, President Obama is surely happy. He's made that quite clear, what with his arrogant, gloating pontificating: "This is what change looks like!" I agree with him. This is what his party's idea of what change looks like: ugly, divisive, inefficient, impractical, morally bankrupt. Everything about the Democrat's healthcare policymaking, from their use of bribes and kickbacks to their unfettered support of abortion, smacks of absolute moral cluelessness. They lied to the American people about the contents of the bill. They made it clear that they would pass it by any means neccesary, ignoring established procedures and the fact that only 30% of the country wanted the bill to pass. And they have disregarded the sacred desire of pro-life Americans to abstain from funding infanticide with their own tax dollars. The rape of my earnings by taxation each week is bad enough; that those dollars are now going from my paycheck to some bullshit "community health center", and ultimately to abortion providers, sickens me. The colonists rebelled against the British Empire for a hell of a lot less.

An aside to Representative Bart Stupak, the "pro-life Democrat" (there is no such thing): you, sir, are a dishonest, useless bastard. Your posturing as a pro-lifer means nothing in light of your ultimate weak capitulation to the White House. I take back every positive thing that I may have said about you. You have proven that, like every other Democrat in America, your natural sense of right and wrong is trumped by dollar signs and matters of political expediency. This is why I hate everyone of your ilk, and why I sincerely hope that the Democratic party is obliterated in November. The only good Democrat is an unseated Democrat.

In the past year Obama has directed the federal takeover of significant chunks of the U.S. banking industry, the U.S. car industry, and now the U.S. health insurance industry. When the market is bad, it's the perfect time to buy. The President has used the current economic downturn as an excuse to carry out the hyper-regulatory fantasies that Democrats have only been able to grasp at for the past fifty years.

This bill will be a massive burden on our country. Instead of real reform, we have a mere power grab. Liberals hated it when George W. Bush listened in on the phone conversations of terrorists, but they don't care about the protection of privacy when industry is concerned.

May God bless us with a repeal, whether now or some other day.

Biting the Hand That Feeds You

What the fluff? Patrick Kennedy, having ruled out reelection, went on a paradoxical House floor tirade. His target? It wasn't the GOP. Nor Scott Brown. Nor George Bush. Nor "the past eight years".

What was it? The media. Of all things, the media. The "cynical" media, as he calls "it"*. Railing against the lack of press coverage of the Afghan war, Kennedy pointed up at the gallery, shook his fist, gnashed his teeth, and decried the newsmen.

Was this a stunt? Are you kidding, Patty? The press has praised, promoted, covered for, and lied to protect the Kennedy family for 50 years. After all they have done to shield America's royalty from negative public opinion, Patrick blasted away. Left-wing reporters across the nation must be feeling as though they've been had.

This is the ultimate betrayal. In liberal eschatology, Kennedy will be in a lower circle of hell than Brutus, Cassius, and the Iscariot...and Joe Lieberman.

*One should not refer to the media as "it", since "media" is plural. The singular usage would be "medium".

Plural: The media are sadly devoted to left-wing causes.
Singular: The medium of print news is dying.

Embarassing

The United States has apologized to terrorist-harboring dictator Muammar Gaddafi of Libya for criticizing his calls for Jihad against Switzerland.

Go ahead and click on that link. Read the story. This is one of the most humiliating and embarassing diplomatic blunders that Obama's White House has yet committed. Gaddafi's government has openly assisted terrorist groups that have killed American citizens in the past. And we are apologizing to him because we were critical of his calls for more terrorism?

If President Obama does not immediately rectify this situation, than he will cement his place the weakest, most impotent American president since Carter, as far as international relations are concerned.

Hypocrisy

A black Tea Party protester who was selling buttons and flags outside a meeting was viciously, brutally attacked by Service Employees International Union members in Missouri last August. Today, Gateway Pundit announces that the perps will face trial.

I didn't know that this incident happened until today. Where are the cries of racism? Where is the NAACP? Why aren't the lefties speaking out on behalf of a man who was beaten, stomped on, and verbally assaulted with racist remarks simply for professing his political beliefs?

Because he disagrees with them. The left loves to talk about how it champions racial equality, but they will not raise a finger to defend a black man who opposes them. This shameful, disgusting selectivity undermines everything that liberals "stand for". Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and every other race-baiting mouth out there should be ashamed that they have let this incident pass in silence.

As for the SEIU: this incident is proof positive that big labor has still not moved away from its 1930s-style thug tactics. Union neanderthals use the same brutal tactics today that they did nearly one hundred years ago. The SEIU will do anything to stomp on those who don't enshrine the President that they stumped and cheated for.

The next time a liberal tells you that he or she supports free speech, laugh in his or her face.

Delahunt is Done

Finally. After decades of holding elected office, Rep. William Delahunt of the Massachusetts Tenth Congressional District has said that he is not seeking reelection in November.

Delahunt is not just a whiner and a spendthrift. He is possibly complicit in the cover-up of a murder or, at best, has been found to have acted negligently as a District Attorney.

Good riddance, and may another truck-driving, tax-cutting, hopefully pro-life Republican take his seat. The Scott Brown effect will hopefully continue.

The Ticking Clock

The Iranian government seems to be preparing itself and its people for war. This is not neccesarily news, as most sane people have seen this coming for years. However, in recent weeks, the agitating of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become more pronounced. His threats and insinuations against Israel continue to intensify, to the point where he is now openly elaborating on what a potential war might look like, and how battle lines might be drawn. A complacent world can no longer reassure itself that Iran poses no threat to anyone.

Doubtless the recent apparent action by Israel against Hamas is stoking Iran's anger. Israeli agents brazenly took out a hit on a Hamas leader, using European passports to infiltrate a hotel in Dubai where the target was staying. The incident has created a diplomatic mess, but it illustrates Israel's refusal to conduct its own War on Terror by any sort of politically correct rulebook. Israel and Iran are on a collision course, and Israel is clearly not going to blink.

Meanwhile, discussion of a potential conflict remains muted and sparse in the U.S. We continue to call for sanctions and warn that our fuse is running short. This is all well and good, but idle talk had better give way to preparation. What will we do if Israel ends up fighting a multifront war against Iran and its neighbors? What if Iran sees no distinction between Israel and the U.S., and includes our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of its list of potential military targets when things get hot?

The writing is on the wall, and we had best start gearing up for the inevitable. The last thing I want to see is a third front in our current war against Islamic terrorism. However, events are moving rapidly in the direction of armed conflict. We better figure out how we intend to respond.

Back in 2003, some said that Iraq and Iran were equally threatening to world peace, and that any military action against one or the other would still leave us with a net total of one dangerous Islamo-fascist state. It's an interesting line of thinking. Here we are, seven years later, staring down a pissed-off and (possibly) nuclear-armed Iran. Of the "elective wars" that we could have fought, did we choose the right one? Would Saddam Hussein be as much of a threat in 2010 as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? I don't know the answers, but the questions intrigue me.

The Dems Are Dropping Like Flies...For Now

Numbskull Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island will not be seeking re-election in November 2010.

Neither will Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who is ahead in the polls but is sick of being part of a do-nothing Congress.

Nor will Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Nor will Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota.

Clearly, this is because the Democrats know they have infuriated the electorate by failing to save jobs, wasting tax dollars at a tremendous rate, and attempting to foist an unwanted healthcare reform bill upon the country. They want to walk out before they are kicked out.

Self-preservation is more than a small part of this. By refusing to run for re-election, and by distancing themselves from the Obama administration, these fellows can preserve their hopes for making a political comeback one day.

One troubling rumor even sees Patrick Kennedy running against Scott Brown in 2012. Given that he is a whiny, immature carpetbagger/drunkard, I think he would lose...but the prospect of his attempt still makes me sick.

It's All About the Tea Party

The recent Tea Party convention, and its keynote address by Sarah Palin, loom large over the national discourse today. I will have more to say later, but I think it's fascinating that the conservative stalwarts of 2008 are now being pushed askew in 2010. Is the country banking hard right all of a sudden?

Snivelling Patrick Kennedy Gets Snarky When His Party Loses

Representative Patrick Kennedy has called Scott Brown's election "a joke". Way to treat your new colleague(who, by the way, outranks you by virtue of his seat in the Upper House).

This is a classless, juvenile display from a spoiled, egotistical little prince who can't stand the fact that his worthless ideology is losing traction in the public eye.

Good Riddance, Paul Kirk

Interim U.S.-Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) is a Senator no more, and Scott Brown has taken his place. Good riddance, Kirk.

I find it both telling and humorous that nobody came to his final Senate speech, which was about bipartisanship, of all things (as if he knows anything about that particular concept). You would be hard-pressed to find a more boring, career left-wing bureaucrat than this guy. They'll always remember him in D.C. as a guy who sure knew how to clear a room.

Congratulations to Scott Brown, on his swearing in.

Rahm's "Retarded Democrats" Remark

Those loving, caring, social justice-promoting Democrats have shown a real disdain for the mentally handicapped lately. First, there were the pro-abortion propagandists who made posters that depicted fantasy images of Sarah Palin aborting her son Trig, emphasizing the child's Down's syndrome as a major selling point for the wonders of infanticide. Then, there was President Obama's "Special Olympics" remark. Now, liberal guru/White House advisor Rahm Emmanuel is apologizing for referring to some Democratic lawmakers as "retarded".

There is something afoot here. The left wing of the U.S. has promoted and presided over what essentially amounts to an extermination of disabled babies, after all.

Do I believe that Obama, Emmanuel, and lefties of their ilk are intentionally attacking the handicapped with their gaffes? No, because such gaffes are politically dangerous, and a politician stands to lose much by making derisive statements about the disadvantaged. However, perhaps, on a subconscious level, the callousness of America's current attitude towards Down's syndrome children (roughly 90% get aborted) is beginning to filter into public speech. It's an interesting trend, at the very least.

Common Sense Proposals

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) has outlined some basic proposals that, he maintains, could be enacted to alleviate U.S. economic woes. These are non-inflammatory, essentially apolitical ideas that both Republicans and Democrats can get behind. The outcome would be an enhanced environment for economic growth.

I fear that good stuff like this will be passed up in favor of the usual party-driven, hackneyed, talking point BS that elected officials resort to in times of crisis. Common sense proposals like these would do much for our ailing economy, but will they fall on deaf ears?

President Obama's State of the Union Address

As the President of the United States prepares to deliver the annual State of the Union address, I can only ask one question: what can he say? What has he done during the first year of his presidency to alter the union's prospects for the better? What can he point to as he stands before the entire country and attempts to justify his first year as our leader?

In light of diving poll numbers, State Senator Scott Brown's bill-killing victory in the Massachusetts senate race, and the basic failure of "Obamaism" in terms of claiming legislative victories, there is not much material to draw from.

The massive spending/stimulus packages? Utterly ineffective.

Obama's decision to send reinforcements to Afghanistan? Right, perhaps, but late.

Obama's healthcare bill? Dead in the water.

Obama's attempts to campaign for Democratic candidates around the country? 0 for 3.

Unemployment? Higher than it was a year ago.

Lay-offs? Steadily streaming.

Hence, there is not much good news to share. Most are expecting a fundamentally reactive presentation. Now is not the time for Obama to jog onstage and arrogantly reassert the failed healthcare reform initiative that he pushed in 2009. Now is not the time for him to set his chin angrily and raise his voice into that telltale shout that he uses when he wants to "talk tough" about his agenda. When you're being hammered by your constituents, and when your cheerleaders in the press can barely conceal the public's anger, you must give an inch or two. Is it not a bad sign for Obama that he's already publicly mulling over the ramifications of losing in 2012?

Look for Obama to reach for some middle ground, hawking his policy goals with renewed rhetorical vigor while simultaneously acknowledging the brick walls.

A Day of Mourning

On this anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision, read the late Richard John Neuhaus' speech on the pro-life movement. It's been republished over at First Things. The great Father Neuhaus was one of the most eloquent defenders of the unborn in recent memory.

How tragic it is to think of the nameless, faceless generations that would now walk this Earth had abortion remained an illegal practice. This is the greatest of our national sins: that we allowed nine robed dictators to infer a non-existent "right to privacy" from our Constitution that allows a doctor to kill an unborn child on behalf of its mother. I've never been able to fathom the philosophical connection between a right to "privacy" and a right to do whatever one wishes, right up to killing another human being.

Our cowardly politicians continue to hide behind empty rhetoric in order to avoid the consequences of admitting abortion is wrong. "We can't impose our views on others!" "Women can do whatever they want with their bodies!" Such statements, taken as Gospel by the gullible masses, are so at odds with common sense moral principles. If we can "impose" our opposition to littering, tax-evasion, and assault and battery on those whom we penalize for such offenses, why should abortion be any different? Does taking another human's life really count as a mere exercise of control over one's body?

These are the questions that the left does not want you to ask. The answers are obvious, but the implications of the truth would destroy the liberal utopian ideal. Therefore, abortion advocates hate anyone who expresses qualms about unfettered abortion access. Question their permissive, anti-human ideology and they call you a misogynist, a neanderthal, perhaps even a racist for good measure (because Lord knows, if you disagree with anything that the Democratic Party does, you MUST hate minorities). What they will not do, in my experience, is respond in a logical, sensible, or scientifically sound way.

Be thankful that maybe, just maybe, the common folk are waking up and realizing all of this. A majority of Americans are pro-life, according to Gallup. Maybe one day, when the Democratic Party and the pro-choice press have spent their credibility, the majority feeling will translate into action.

Assclown of the Week: Keith Olberman

Apparently, because Scott Brown is a white male, owns a pickup truck, and opposes the healthcare plan of a black president, he is racist, and so are those who voted for him.

Thus sayeth Keith Olbermann, the liberal blowhard whose false, useless, race-baiting, hateful hyperbole was unleashed on TV screens across America prior to the Massachusetts senate election.

Liberals have begun to utilize the race card in truly bizarre, irrelevant ways. A Democrat loses to a Republican, even though neither candidate is a minority? Blame racism. A majority of Americans oppose the Democratic healthcare reform bill? Blame racism. It is utterly absurd. When will minority commentators stand up and object to this patronizing, utilitarian ass-kissing? Isn't it somewhat condescending and insulting to have fat, white, old, liberal "journalists" constantly invoke your race as a weapon against those whom they dislike?

Olbermann deserves to be sued for libel on this one. Keith, you are indeed the Assclown of the Week, and you may yet be Assclown of the Year.

On Victory

Scott Brown is headed for D.C. Truly, his victory on Tuesday ranks as one of the greatest political upset victories of all time. With his admittance to the Senate, the GOP will now be able to stop the ridiculous Democratic healthcare reform bill from passing.

Ought Publius eat crow, given his earlier post declaring that the race was, in fact, a non-race? Sure. I was wrong. But I wouldn't dream of deleting my hopeless December rant. It stands as a tribute to the limits of healthy skepticism. Miracles happen after all.

I have come to admire many things about Scott Brown during this campaign. Granted, there is room for improvement. However, Brown ran the kind of campaign that I believe America has needed for years: it was honest, positive, energetic, and devoid of hyperbolic sniping (alas, on the last of these, Coakley was the dead opposite, what with her patently false "Scott-Brown-Hates-Women" ads). I believe he will be an effective and hard-working U.S. senator, and I look forward to seeing what he contributes.

As far as his conservative credentials go: he needs to ante up and oppose abortion flat out. On the greatest civil rights issue of our day, he is not entirely reliable. Yet his desire for healthcare worker conscience protections, and his opposition to partial birth abortion, are healthy signs. There is a moral compass present in Brown that we can work with. Supporting him while simultaneously holding him accountable is the right curse.

I will say this for Martha Coakley: had she so desired, she could have stomped her feet and demanded copious recounts in light of her defeat. Instead, she took the high road (finally) and conceded when it became mathematically impossible for her to pull ahead. Still, her campaign is destined to go down as one of the most lethargic, lame election bids in history. Her defeat can rightfully be attributed to both a general lack of excitement amongst the Democratic base and a massive surge of pro-Brown energy in the suburbs. While the vapid, brainwashed masses of densely-populated Newton, Wellesley, Cambridge, and Brookline probably turned out for Coakley, it was the mass of commoners across the rest of the state that put Brown over the top.

The common man hath spoken. Obamacare has been repudiated, honesty and integrity on the campaign trail has been rewarded, and the liberal element in American politics has been made to look arrogant, out of touch, and unpopular. Obama has begun his post-defeat two-stepping, but it's all for naught. Good luck to Senator Brown as he takes his place in the higher chamber.

P.S. Glenn Beck's blistering attack on Scott Brown is frown-worthy. Brown's joke about his daughters' "availability" was innocent/harmless. Ayla Brown thought so, at least. Though I appreciate a decent amount of Beck's material by and large, I disagree with him here.

Biden: If You Can't Beat Em...

...then change the rules.

After all, who needs a majority? When you've got the anointment of Obama on your side, why bother with things like rules and procedures?

Clearly, the Dems are preparing us for the new round of unethical behavior on their part that a Scott Brown victory will trigger.

Obama's Last-Minute Trip to Boston

Again, I return to the subject of the pending Massachusetts election. At this point it has become a national story. The intensity was ratcheted up today by President Obama's last-minute, emergency trip to Boston, where he stumped for Coakley after spending a couple of weeks saying that he had no plans to do so.

Obama's visit is indicative of the Democrat's utter terror at the prospect of losing. Earlier this week, one poll showed that Brown was not only alive and well, but leading the race. This made Coakley's shy, non-campaigning, and her increasingly negative tone, seem ever more inappropriate; you can't project complacency and arrogance when you're losing. Hence Obama came to invigorate her lackluster campaign with some liberal, hope-and-change magic.

Needless to say, the president is worried about Brown's ability to kill the healthcare reform bill that is currently being rammed down our throats. It's highly unlikely that he would have flown to Massachusetts if the bill was already a done deal. Obama's visit is yet another example of his White House's constant "campaign mode" method of dealing with public policy challenges.

If Brown wins, Obama will have spent political capital on a high-profile, losing battle. Surely, a Brown victory will be seen as a repudiation of Obama's presidency. This is Massachusetts. It is the most liberal state in the union. A Republican victory here would be a clear sign that liberalism is not as embraced in America as its proponents want everyone to think.

P.S.- Is it not delightful that the vile blob of uselessness known as Representative Barney Frank (D-Newton) is already trying to distance the Democratic establishment from Coakley, should she lose?

P.S.S.- Senator Chuck Schumer is an asshole. His crude, politically-irrelevant cutdown of Scott Brown leaves me unable to call him anything else.