Senate Reaches Deal to Open Government

Senators Reid and McConnell have brought their parties, at least at the senate level, into agreement range in a bid to reopen the federal government. Speaker Boehner will call the House to vote on a resolution for the end of the shutdown as well.

The House is scheduled to consider the deal at 3 p.m.; the Senate, "after dinner," according to CNN.

The Senate deal would:

• Keep the government open until Jan. 15;
• Increase the debt ceiling through Feb. 7;
• Appoint negotiators to hammer out a long-term budget deal;
• Require income verification for those signing up for Obamacare subsidies.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced the agreement on the Senate floor, where it was expected to win swift approval after a main Republican critic of the deal, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, said he would not use procedural moves to delay a vote.

Senator Cruz of Texas has come out against the deal stating that it does not address Obamacare: ""The deal that has been cut provides no relief to millions of Americans who are hurting because of Obamacare. The deal that has been cut provides no relief to the young people coming out of school who cannot find a job because of Obamacare."

Regardless of who is to blame for having kept the government shut down for the past two weeks, the people of the United States are the real losers in all the political wrangling during this beltway showdown. The politicians that have been sent to Washington are not there representing the interests of the people of this country. The bullying, the haranguing, the posturing and posing, have all been for the benefits of the cameras covering the events of the shutdown. Washington keeps itself separated and segregated from the rest of the country by passing laws that they, themselves, do not follow or adhere to.

According to some legends of King Arthur, Camelot fell into sharp decline when there was one set of laws for the kingdom and a different set of laws for the King. Are we, as Camelot, falling into decline as a nation because of the same circumstance? Can a nation exist if there is one set of laws for the governors and another set for the governed? If history is any judge, looking at Rome and the Soviet system, such a system is doomed to failure...

Just a thought

Sic vis pacem parabellum

MT

Updated: Government Denies Death Benefits to Service Members During Shutdown

See update below.

Adding to the list of things not being done by the federal government during the government shutdown, the Pentagon has released a statement that it does not have the "authority" to authorize death benefits for service members killed during this time period.

All of the leaders noted that despite the recall of most civilians, and the resumption of many activities across the Department of Defense, there are critical programs and benefits that remain halted. For example, the department does not currently have the authority to pay death gratuities for the survivors of service members killed in action – typically a cash payment of $100,000 paid within three days of the death of a service member. In addition, emergency funding that supports commanders on the ground and intelligence activities remains unavailable. Service leaders also reported that because of the shutdown, they are curtailing training for later deploying units – an activity that has already been reduced due to sequestration.

Blame who you will for the current governmental shutdown, but for service members to be denied death benefits, for the families of those service members to have stress added upon them unnecessarily, because two groups of people cannot come to terms, compromise with each other, and come to agreements over what amounts to little more than individuals being worried about their legacies over serving the public they were elected to represent, is reprehensible.

It is of little wonder that our founding fathers warned us against political party systems.

To our legislative bodies: fix this mess.

Now.

Sic vis pacem parabellum.

MT

Update: A private charity has stepped up to the plate to do what our government can't/won't do during the shutdown period.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Wednesday families of troops who die during the government shutdown will receive a death benefit payment, despite legal restrictions on the Pentagon, thanks to a deal reached with a private charity.

The Blame Game

I have a very serious question to ask. If you didn't know, thanks to the media telling you over and over how the government was shut down, would you feel any repercussions from it personally? It's a serious question, not one that requires any answer to me, personally, but one that you have to answer for yourself. Once you've answered that question for yourself, then you have to decide whether or not to do something about it.

The media is full of blame, the politicians are full of blame, the American people are all taking their sides on who is to blame for this shutdown. The main streamers seem to want to blame the Republicans, shouldering the burden of blame fully on them for responsibility for this latest (I shudder to use the word that has been so overused the past several years) crisis. According to Media Research Center, the main stream media was blaming the pending shutdown on Republicans for two weeks before it even happened. There seems to be a trend to this, we'll discuss that at another time.

Who do we blame, who do we blame, who do we blame and pile heeps of shame? The real answer to this question is no further away than your bathroom mirror.

I'll let that soak in for a moment while posting a picture of a random Kardashian, Rob, who doesn't care about "keeping up" with the rest of the family, to distract you, main stream media style, from the real problems and events of the day:

I'm not here to play the blame game with anyone, I'm not here to play he said/she said. I will point out that the federal debt limit has been raised under el Presidente Obama. I will also say that we, the citizenry of the United States, do not do our own research on our candidates, but will instead let the media present our politicians to us like a pig at a luau. We the people do not participate in our government, as responsible citizens, such as were our founding fathers. We participate in keeping up...be it with the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus, or who George Clooney is being seen with this week. Distraction is the game of the day, and until the government shuts down, we don't really pay that much attention, and as a result we do not send the best and brightest to Washington, or even to our state or local governments, to represent US. When we do pay attention, such as in the case of the current shutdown, the main streamers do what they can to hype it up into an evangelical frenzy, only instead of preaching about the Grace and Wrath of God, their subject is how you should be afraid, be VERY afraid, that your nanny state isn't able to watch over you...

Just a thought.

Sic vis pacem parabellum.

Mike Tippitt

Obama and Wright, a lesson in the power of much ado about nothing?

I love Shakespeare. The man had a flair, and had a saying that fits almost every occasion. "All the world's a stage," and "methinks the lady doth protest too much" come heavily to mind when it comes to Barack Hussein Obama and his mentor Jeremiah Wright.


For the past few days, as evidenced by Marc Ambinder's article in the Atlantic, we've been bombarded by story after story, report after report, article after article, about how that Obama has disowned, disavowed, disassociated, disconnected from, dismissed, and all but disintegrated Wright, right?

Wrong.

"Something is rotten in the State of Denmark." I honestly think that Obama and Wright are both protesting too loudly and too much. Way too much.

Everyone from Limbaugh down is talking about how Obama has thrown Wright under the bus on this. I thought that at first, as well, but see, I've been thinking (damned dangerous, I know, especially when it comes to me doing it, because I love puzzles, and damned if this didn't fall into place just like a puzzle).

Here's how I've pieced it together, in my mind (short version, the actual process of my reasoning this out would scare the hell out of you): Obama was a virtual unknown in the political arena, he winds up at Wright's church while trying to make a name for himself, enters into the race for the 2004 Illinois Senate seat and virtually coasted into the office because of the SCANDALOUS divorce situation around incumbent Jack Ryan (whose wife is actress Jeri Ryan), and now, without even having completed ONE TERM in the Senate, he's a front runner for the Presidency?

I smell the Chicago political machine.

This thing with Obama separating himself from Wright is nothing more than typical smoke and mirrors on the part of the Obama camp in order to try to make himself the "glory boy" and "messiah" again before the last primaries and Denver.

You don't just walk away from 20 years of association with your mentor.

That's horse shit.

But that's my opinion, as Dennis Miller says, I may be wrong.

I don't think I am.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Obama on Wright: Does Anyone Else Smell...Something?

If you haven't been living under a rock or off on safari in Africa you know who Jeremiah Wright is by now. God knows we've seen enough of him on television, heard him on radio, and there are no telling how many countless youtube and other vid sites of him by now.

After (how many does this make now, discounting Hannity's first revelations about Wright last year?) weeks of listening to Wright "God Damn"ing America, Barack Hussein Obama (yes, I'm going to use his middle name, it's his damned name, isn't it? if he doesn't like it, he should change it to Harold or something like that. No more bullshit over that, either) has finally publicly denounced the former pastor in Winston-Salem, North-Carolina.

Obama is trying to tamp down the uproar over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at a tough time in his campaign. The Illinois senator is coming off a loss in Pennsylvania to rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and trying to win over white working-class voters in Indiana and North Carolina in next Tuesday's primaries.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.

His strong words come just six weeks after Obama delivered a sweeping speech on race in which he sharply condemned Wright's remarks but did not leave the church or repudiate the minister himself, who he said was like a family member. After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago made three public appearances in four days to defend himself.

Does anyone else smell horse shit here? Obama attends Wright's church for what, twenty years, doesn't say anything negative about Wright's stand on things, which unless he was sleeping he's sure to have picked up on, unless he's CLUELESS, in which case we have to wonder if he's competent enough to be in the positions he's in both as Senator and as Presidential candidate.

Horse shit. He's outraged? OUTRAGED? I'm outraged that there are people out there who are buying this load of second rate manure that isn't fit for composting, let alone for good fertilizer. There is one reason Obama is making this stand, and one reason only: Political Expedience. That's it, nothing else. He hasn't tossed Wright under the bus, he's drop kicked him for distance and is hoping he lands far enough away that the taint and stink is gone.

Guess what, Barry H. Obama (sounds kind of Irish if you use it the way he preferred to be called before entering politics, doesn't it?), there are some of us out here who are paying attention, some of us out here aren't the mindless hordes fainting and fawning over your every empty word, listening to you prattle on about change and hope and all this empty hot air that comes out of your well groomed, ivy-league prepared lawyer's glib tongued mouth.

We are not impressed.

For over a year we have watched Obama rise like a freshly prepared bread dough waiting for the oven, but just like that bread dough, if you poke a hole in it, the air is going to come out and you're going to be left with nothing but the outer skin. THAT is your Rock Star Presidential Candidate, America. That's Barack Obama. No substance, nothing of meaning.

Kind of makes you wonder why all of the terrorist organizations around the world hope he's our next President, doesn't it?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Watching the "Inevitable" Meltdown

If you look on the liberal blogs, you'll find something interesting happening. The bloggers are going ballistic. Now, normally, this isn't such an unusual thing and would pretty much go beyond the notice of the attentions of those of us from the middle to far right, but here's the interesting thing: the bloggers are going ballistic on each other rather than on things that we, conservatives and moderates, are doing.

So what's going on on the liberal side of the aisle that we're no longer the focus? Internal bickering and fighting. Conflicting issues. Power struggles and power plays, not just by the candidates, but by their supporters. Different factions are turning on each other, liberal bloggers are attacking other liberal bloggers, and the entire situation seems to be hitting a feeding frenzy mode of lib blogger eat lib blogger. One blogger at DailyKos makes this observation:

I’ve been posting at DailyKos for nearly 4 years now and started writing diaries in support of Hillary Clinton back in June of last year. Over the past few months I’ve noticed that things have become progressively more abusive toward my candidate and her supporters.

I’ve put up with the abuse and anger because I’ve always believed in what our on-line community has tried to accomplish in this world. No more. DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community.

I’ve decided to go on "strike" and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution. I will not be posting at DailyKos effective immediately. I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate – a good and fine DEMOCRAT - is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page.



I don't even have to do any research on this one to know that it's liberals attacking liberals here. DailyKos is not well known as a bastion of Conservative thinkers.

But this is just one isolated incident, one might argue. One blogger who feels "picked on" by the other hens in the chicken yard, so to speak (simply putting things in terms where the concept of a "pecking order" is more visual to the mind of the reader. Trust me, you don't want me to try to draw chickens pecking each other in a chicken yard. One of my psych professors tried doing that. It wasn't pretty). No, this is merely one very visible and telling indication of what's going on in the blogosphere: the liberals are suffering something of a cyber-civil war, and the conservatives are sitting back scratching their heads wondering what, exactly, to do.

Why do I say it's a liberal civil war? Let's examine that, shall we? Grab you fedora's, your bullwhips, and your colt .45's (the pistol, not the malt liquor), it's Indiana Jones time for just a little bit as we go on a little adventure: comparing the conservatives to the liberals to examine what the hell is going on.

Picture, if you will, a conservative. Get a good mental image of what you THINK a Republican Conservative would look like if you passed one walking down the street on any given day. Got it? Good, because I want you to hang on to that thought for just a moment, I may just be on the verge of shattering the image you conjured forth in your mind. Brace yourselves, now, this might hurt just a bit. Are you ready? Good. If you pictured a portly gentleman in a three piece suit, bald head, smoking a cigar, gold watch chain stretched across his ample paunch leading to a pocket watch stuffed into the pocket of his vest, you've just envisioned the Hollywood and dinosaur media perpetuation of what a Conservative Republican looks like. Shake your head, clear your mind, get that image GONE, it has a place, but we don't need to conjure it forth again just yet. Now, breath in, breath out, and focus. Picture for yourself a man climbing a pole on a set of hooks, safety gear at the ready to lock into place when he reaches his working height near the top of the pole, be it cable, telephone, or electric. Picture the soccer mom driving the crumb crunchers to school in the morning and taking them to ball practice this afternoon. Picture your neighborhood church's pastor. The small business owner. The entrepreneurs. THESE are more likely to be the kinds of people who are more adherent to the conservative line of thinking today. That other fellow, the big guy in the business suit who's enjoying a cigar while telling you that he needs to raise the taxes on your cigarettes? That's more like your modern day liberal than you can imagine. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty, PLENTY of working class liberals out here, too. I bet, I would just BET, that if I had asked you to envision a liberal, you would have had trouble coming up with any one clear, concise image of what you had in mind that a liberal might look like.

If you ask the average conservative what makes him (yes, I use "him," it's grammatically correct and refers to both male and female in instances such as this. If you're looking for ME to be politically correct, don't hold your breath. It ain't happening. I'd rather be grammatically correct) a conservative, you're going to get a basic rundown of answers that fall in line with the conservative mindset: limited federal government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and rugged individualism. There might be other inclusions into that according to the individual, but that's going to be pretty much the answer if you ask more than two or three of us separately.

What do you suppose the answer would be if you asked a liberal why he's a liberal? Can you imagine the number of answers you would get going from individual to individual asking this question? I've asked this question of liberals; I've yet to see any binding thought process behind liberalism other than bigger, stronger, more controlling governmental legislation to fix everything.

Wanting the government to control things isn't a guiding principle. Wanting the government to control everything is giving up yourself unto the control of someone other than yourself. Whether by force and coercion or by choice, the giving up of ones rights to another is a form of slavery.

So if the liberals want us all to become slaves of the government, according to that thought process, why all the internal bickering and fighting among the liberals? Let's go back to the conservatives for a moment. Among the conservatives, you have a clear, defined, coherent set of core beliefs that, as a group, the conservatives adhere to. It isn't brainwashing, it isn't "group-think," it's individuality expressing itself in the common thought process that man is a creature who longs for, and strives for, and will die for, to attain a goal, and that goal is individual freedom and individual responsibility. That doesn't mean that there aren't conservatives out there who don't do volunteer work in the community, it doesn't mean that there aren't conservatives out there who won't help their fellow man, it doesn't mean that conservatives are self-centered and self-absorbed people who look out only for themselves and care nothing for others. If you'll examine who the conservatives are in your community, you'll more than likely find them giving their time to coach little league baseball, serve as volunteer fire fighters, and lead in other community projects. And they do so quietly, for the most part, without the need to feed their egos with the gratitude and platitudes of the mass public. Their satisfaction comes from knowing that they are doing something positive, and by choice, and that they're doing the things that they want to do rather than being forced into doing something against their will. There is a binding, unifying common thread among conservatives that cause them to stand together under the idea of a common thought process, and the code for that ideology is what I mentioned before.

But the liberals, as I said, are turning on each other, devouring each other, and doing their best to do each other, and ultimately themselves, in. There are so many causes that fall under the umbrella of liberalism that lie in contradiction with each other that they are finding themselves unable to survive the existence of each other.

I have often said that contradictions can not exist. Modern liberalism is proving that theory to be correct. When you have a party, such as the modern Democratic party, that hosts so many conflicting points of view, it's going to come apart at the seams.

What are these contradicting points of view, you ask? I'm glad you asked that. Let me point out just a few of them. When you have a governor who proposes, as we do in Tennessee, that everyone should stop smoking, who puts forth legislation to stop smoking in public places, and then sets forth legislation to raise the taxes on cigarettes in order to fund education projects, that is a contradiction. You can not force people to stop smoking or curb their habit and yet and still rely upon the taxes raised from smokers to fund anything. To have a party that promotes abortion on demand and opposes the death penalty for capital crimes is a contradiction. Both activities mean someone is going to be killed. For a party to demand to live in freedom and yet ask that the government take more control of their lives and take care of them from cradle to grave is a contradiction. For a party to demand that all religions be respected equally unless they are based in Christianity is a contradiction.

And the list goes on. There are literally thousands of other examples. Save the dolphins, but not the tuna? That's always been one of my favorite examples. The point is this: contradictions can not exist. A contradictory thing will struggle to center itself to a point where it no longer lies in contradiction. And that is what we are seeing coming out of the liberal blogs.

When you see news footage of liberals protesting, how are they acting? Are they marching along peacefully, as they did in the days of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (one of my favorite liberals, by the way, from a time when being liberal truly did mean being progressive)? Likely you'll see them shouting, as the Code Pink members protesting in front of the Marine recruiting station in Berkeley. A great, great many liberals feel like they have to shout and go on the offensive to make their point. That's why it's referred to as militant liberalism. Unfortunately for the liberals, the generals are clashing (everyone is a general in the militant liberal movement, by the way. There are no privates. Well, there are, but, um, never mind). Group A is attacking group B while reacting to an attack from group C who is being assisted, for the moment, by group D while fending off a counter-assault from group E, who just recently decimated in an onslaught of rampant verbiage groups G, H, and J (there is no I in liberalism, it is all, "we").
The save the polar bear people are attacking the save the baby seal people because that's what polar bears do, they attack and eat baby seals.

The plastic baggers have just recently sacked the paper baggers.

The save the whales people are treading water amongst the save the sharks people. We're still waiting to see what happens there when the save the dolphin and bottle nosed porpoise people show up with the save the orca people in that one.

The save the predatory ocean bird people have egg on their face because of exposure from the save the sea turtle people.

It goes on and on and on, but seems to be centering itself in a conflict around "do we want Hillary or Obama?" Each side has decided that they will do what they need to do to shout the other side down. The side that shouts most loudly wins, rights? The question is, what are they shouting about, and why are they shouting in the first place? At some point, during the 1960's, someone, possibly Abby Hoffman, decided that liberals should shout to make their point. Yes, I know King shouted, too, but honestly, how many Baptist preachers have you ever listened to in your life who didn't shout? I'd say not very many. Not that old school, Bible thumping, fire and brimstone type of preacher, anyway.

Part of the problem that the left is facing is that the "inevitability" factor of Hillary Clinton didn't quite pan out the way that they expected. According to (pardon the tongue in cheek moment here, but I have to) conservative thinking among the left, Hillary Clinton had all but been anointed as the next to take the throne. And then along came the newly appointed pastor of the Church of Hope and Change. And people remembered, with a new player on the scene, "Hey, I don't LIKE Hillary Clinton." The "inevitable" has suddenly a heated race for the top spot. And as the smearing and mud slinging heats up between Clinton and Obama, expect it to pick up in the blog world.

Just don't let me run out of buttered popcorn that was popped in coconut popcorn oil while we're watching them slug it out. And if anyone wants to bring along some ice cold Corona, we might even watch them with the windows open this spring, listening to the coyotes yipping across the distance...


Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Obama Double Talking to Americans and Canadians?

How far is a candidate willing to go to become President? Will a candidate say one thing to the American public and something else altogether to representatives from other nations?

During last Tuesday night's Cleveland, Ohio, debates, Barack Obama said that he felt that the North American Free Trade Agreement would be renegotiated if he's elected President, in response to Hillary Clinton's statement that she would "back out" of the agreement if it wasn't renegotiated to her satisfaction in six months time with her as President. Obama said that he thought the renegotiations could be conducted using the United States option to withdraw from the agreement.

But is that the whole of the story? According to Canada's CTV, it's not the story one of Obama's senior campaign members told Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Wilson.

The Obama insider reportedly told the ambassador, "Don't worry[/url] -- it's just campaign rhetoric, it's not serious," CTV reported.

CTV reported that the Obama campaign's message to Wilson was taken as "completely authentic" by the Canadian government.

What will this mean for the Obama campaign? Perhaps nothing, so long as there are faintings and awe-inspiring speeches of change. It does go to show, however, how far candidates can be willing to go in their pursuit for the power of the office of the President.


Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Are these the qualities of a Commander in Chief?

The President of the United States serves as the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and last but certainly not least, the Marine Corps are all under the united command of the individual who occupies the Oval Office. It has been said, for many years and I don't know who originated it, that no one wants peace more than the warriors.

That being said.

Warriors know this one simple little concept summed up nicely in a Latin phrase; sic vis pacem parabellem. It translates into English, "If you want peace, prepare for war."

Certainly there is much to be said for a CIC who desires to achieve peace for our nation, and indeed for the nations of the world. But the concept of peace by laying down your arms and leaving yourself vulnerable to attack is not the way, in my mind, to achieve peace.

What does Senator Barack Obama have to say about how he would go about working for peace? Let's take a look at his own words on it, with a hat tip to Jay at Stop the ACLU:

A far cry from Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength," and "trust, but verify."

Also check out Ace's thoughts on the matter here.

Just the thoughts of someone who is...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Can we COPY IT? YES WE CAN!

Hillary Clinton's team has accused Democrat opponent Barack Obama of plagiarism, referring to his speeches in which he has said: "Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’ — just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? Just speeches?” The source of the original statements, they claim, belong to Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, from his 2006 campaign.

Senator Barack Obama adapted one of his signature arguments — that his oratory amounts to more than inspiring words — from speeches given by Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts during his 2006 campaign.

At a Democratic Party dinner Saturday in Wisconsin, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, responded to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has criticized him for delivering smooth speeches but says they do not amount to solutions to the nation’s problems, by ticking through a string of historic references.

I'm actually not sure, personally, if Obama DID lift the key elements of Patrick's 2006 speech. Personally, it all sounds like the same old rhetoric of the left to me at this point. I've heard Hillary Clinton make speeches that, to me, sounded like the same things I've heard other Democrats make in the past as well, including things that I'm certain her husband said during his bid for and time as President.

What I DO know, however, is that there IS evidence that Obama takes things from other places, ideas from other people, and incorporates them into his own rhetoric in his bid for the White House, as is evidenced here:



Such are the curiosities of life during the campaign season...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Obama the Builder

The media loves Barack Obama. There's no denying it, he's good on the camera, he speaks well, he carries himself well, and, despite Bill Clinton's claims for the title, if he wins, he truly will be the first black President of the United States.

What does he stand for? What, really, are his driving motivations and philosophies? How much attention has been paid to his record during his bid for the White House? And how does a children's cartoon series play into Presidential politics?

Some pundits have already labeled Obama a "cult personality." With his "Yes we can" speech and his calls for change, Obama has mounted a powerful surge against the tide of Clinton support within the Democratic Party. Even the Kennedy clan is split in their support for Presidential candidates. But is it any more than the normal smoke and mirrors of Washington politics?

Obama, a first-term Illinois senator who would be America's first black president, is threatening to swamp Clinton, the New York senator with the political pedigree who had long been the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

Popular Hollywood actors and musicians have made a Web video glorifying his stump speech, singing "Yes We Can" as he delivers his lines. Liberals and moderates are gushing over him.

Democratic strategist Liz Chadderdon said Obama is sweeping Americans off their feet.

How is he doing it? Perhaps by giving such moving speeches as this one:



No wonder he's been compared to Elvis and JFK. And it may be that, in some weird Freudian way, we've seen a glimpse into the inner workings of Obama's mind, as he has chosen as his campaign catch phrase a slogan that children across the country can relate back to if you ask them about Bob the Builder.



"Can we build it? YES WE CAN!"

Perhaps we can expect to see some Tonka toys in the Oval Office if Obama is elected President, just slightly out of sight of the camera's when he gives us his fireside chats. Don't be surprised if there isn't a hard hat lying around somewhere as well.

Maybe just a little bit more thought should have been put into selecting a campaign slogan...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Obama Takes Maine

Once again, we see how the inevitability of Hillary Clinton isn't so much the case. Despite the below freezing temperatures and up to eight inches of snow, Maine voters turned out to put Obama as their choice over Clinton in today's caucuses.

AUGUSTA, Maine - Barack Obama defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic Party's Maine caucuses on Sunday, grabbing a majority of delegates as the state's Democrats overlooked the snowy weather and turned out in heavy numbers for municipal gatherings.

With 70 percent of the participating precincts reporting, Obama had 57 percent of the vote, while Clinton had 42 percent.

Democrats in 420 Maine towns and cities decided how the state’s 24 delegates would be allotted at the party’s national presidential convention in August. Despite the weather, turnout was “incredible,” party executive director Arden Manning said.

In other breaking news from Team Clinton, her campaign manager has resigned today, as well:

Patti Solis Doyle announced that she is stepping down as the campaign manager for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., ABC News has learned that this afternoon.

In a note she sent to her staff, Solis Doyle announced that this week Maggie Williams, Clinton's chief of staff when she was first lady, "will begin to assume the duties of campaign manager." Solis Doyle, 42, said she would remain as a senior adviser to the campaign.

Senior advisor. So she's not going to be in CHARGE any more, but she'll be there in an ADVISORY role.

Curious how the Clintons shuffle the deck. I'm not sure I'd personally do business that way. OH WAIT, this isn't business, it's politics...

Just a couple of observations from

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Resurrecting Camelot

It starts with the endorsement gained from the daughter of the late JFK. Caroline Kennedy has given her support to Barack Obama for the Democratic Presidential nomination, as recorded in her OP-ED piece at the New York Times:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

It continues with the endorsement of her uncle:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.

Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support.

That will be a potentially significant boost for Obama as he heads into a series of critical primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

Tomorrow's expected endorsement comes after a week of the Clinton camp taking hits from key Democrats for their campaign tactics, and the involvement of Bill stumping for wife Hillary.

This comes as a hard blow for Team Clinton, as they were hoping for the coveted Kennedy clan's backing. The Clinton's, one will recall by going back to the first Presidential campaign for Bill in the 90's, was based on the concept of his being the heir apparent for the JFK legacy. And thus the attempt was made. I'll refer back to my analogy from last night: JFK could be said to have ridden into office on the back of a gleaming white stallion, Bubba rode in on an Arkansas ridgeback mule. JFK was a charming, intellectual, appealing gentleman, Bubba was...a bubba. Jackie was the epitome of the first lady: classy, charming, and intelligent; Hillary was the antithesis of Jackie: brazen, brassy, bossy, and with an agenda of her own.

I dare say we are seeing the blooming of that agenda into fruit today.

I don't agree with Obama politically. I disagree with his views on the war, on our troop deployments, and a host of other issues. I will say, however, that I do find him to be a likable individual, and that goes a long way with winning the hearts and minds of the American public. Hillary has always been challenged with a likability deficit. Obama doesn't have that problem.

There is much back and forth about the involvement of Bill Clinton in Hillary's campaign. I've heard more than a few commentators on both the right AND the left making comments about how that Bill is not acting as a former President should. On the one hand, I can definitely agree with them, he's NOT acting in the manner of a former President. On the other, we have no precedent for which to determine this situation, other than the back and forth husband then wife then husband administrations of the Governor's Wallace in Alabama some years back. That's hardly the same thing, as former Governors are expected to slip into the sidelines and play the part of consultant and goodwill ambasadors instead of active participant as former Presidents are.

I don't think there is any doubt that all Bill Clinton has done is show that he himself is licking his chops hungrily at the prospect of returning to reside in the White House. His barrage of assaults on Obama, the bringing up of the race card (Bill DID run on the concept of being the first black President, after all. Obama will actually TAKE that title should he gain the Presidency, although he was leaving race OUT of the equation). It is obvious from South Carolina that this did nothing to help the Clinton campaign, but hurt her badly in Saturday's Democratic primary there.

The Kennedy clan endorsement means a huge boost for the Obama camp and a bitter blow for Team Clinton. It's almost like a Papal nod to a crown prince in medieval Europe. What remains to be seen, as with the Papalcy of Europe throughout the centuries, is exactly how much influence the Kennedy endorsement actually brings to the Obama camp today; how much power do the Kennedy's still wield. THAT is going to make a difference at the convention.

Until then, it's still looking to be a slugfest for both front running Democrats, with John Edwards in the background far enough behind so as not to have his hair ruffled by the wind of swinging punches.

All in all, it's going to be interesting.

Popcorn, anyone?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Obama takes South Carolina? UPDATED: Caroline Kennedy Endorses Obama

Updates below.

I just walked in the door from work and turned on the news. South Carolina's polls have just closed and Fox News is declaring, based on exit poll data, that Obama has won a significant victory over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

I think the suggestion of Hillary's "inevitability" has just crashed and burned for certain.

Hillary Clinton has already departed South Carolina and is en route to Nashville to stump for Super Tuesday at a town hall event.

Hold on to your wallets, Tennesseans...

[UPDATE 9:00 pm CST]

Obama takes South Carolina by storm, and the speculations continue on whether former President husband Bill Clinton hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign by going on the stump for her. Notice, if you will, the use of the term "rout" used in so many media sources:

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/us/politics/26cnd-carolina.html?_r=1&ex=1359090000&en=bd5825e71e9fbd5f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin" target="_blank">Senator Barack Obama won a lopsided victory in the South Carolina Democratic primary on Saturday, drawing widespread support from a high turnout of black voters in the first Southern contest of the presidential campaign.

His chief rivals for the nomination, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, were in a race for second place as returns continued to trickle in from the state’s precincts.

The rout for Mr. Obama, who trailed in polls here just weeks ago, reinvigorates his campaign after a series of second-place finishes behind Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign had sought to lower expectations for her performance in South Carolina.

(...)

Barack Obama routed Hillary Rodham Clinton in the racially charged South Carolina primary Saturday night, regaining campaign momentum in the prelude to a Feb. 5 coast-to-coast competition for more than 1,600 Democratic National Convention delegates.

(...)

Barack Obama crushed top rival Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina Democratic primary Saturday, in a decisive victory that could reinvigorate his campaign after suffering back-to-back losses to the New York senator.

Their front pages proclaims "Obama Routs Clinton in South Carolina."

(...)

A vast wave of support from African-Americans lifted Barack Obama to victory in South Carolina's Democratic primary. But his showing among white voters suggests an uphill battle in the upcoming primaries where blacks play less of a role.

Blacks accounted for a majority of voters in South Carolina, 53 percent -- the highest turnout among African-Americans in any Democratic presidential primary for which data are available. And a huge proportion of them, 80 percent, supported Obama, compared with 18 percent for Hillary Clinton and just 2 percent for John Edwards.

(...)

Bill Clinton's aggressive campaigning in South Carolina in the days leading up to the state's primary may have had a net negative effect among South Carolina’s Democratic primary voters, CNN exit polls indicate.

Roughly 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters said Bill Clinton's campaigning was important in how they ultimately decided to vote, and of those voters, 48 percent went for Barack Obama while only 37 percent went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent of those voters voted for John Edwards

Meanwhile, the exit polls also indicate Obama easily beat Clinton among those voters who decided in the last three days — when news reports heavily covered the former president's heightened criticisms of Obama. Twenty percent of South Carolina Democrats made their decision in the last three days and 51 percent of them chose Obama, while only 21 percent picked Clinton.

It should be noted before it is forgotten by public that Obama wasn't the one to pull out the race card. America's "First black President" and his candidate wife did that. It seems to me that it backfired for team Clinton in South Carolina.

One can only wonder what comes next from team Clinton out of their bag of dirty politics in the days before Super Tuesday. Personally, I'm expecting anything at this point in the Democratic Party race.

Maybe they'll blame it on a vast black-wing conspiracy?

On another note, Hillary is still leading in the number of delegates for the Democratic nomination. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Democratic Party if the popular vote rules in favor of Obama but the delegate vote supports Hillary.

Tighten up your cinch straps, ya'll, and hold on to your hats. Trails about to get a mite bumpy...

[UPDATE]

No sooner said than it happens. The first next bump.

Camelot has endorsed Obama.

Over the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

Thus begins Caroline Kennedy's OP-ED at the New York Times.

Now, let's follow the thinking here. Bill Clinton rode in on an Arkansas razorback mule in the 90's trying to emulate the stallion riding entry of John F. Kennedy (hey, it's MY analogy, just laugh and nod your heads, damma). Now we see the DAUGHTER of the late President Kennedy endorsing the neoCamelot's opponent...

Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

COULD this be the beginning of Camelot endorsing someone other than the former "heir apparent?"

COULD THIS BE the first death knell of the Clintonistas?

COULD IT BE POSSIBLE that one day Jimmy Olsen will look at Clark Kent and suddenly realize that a pair of glasses just aren't an adequate disguise? Ok, that last question popping into my head tells me that I've been awake for WAY too long.

More tomorrow.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Rubber Chicken Soup and SCHIPS: Dinner Time for Liberal Land

The Democrats were BUSTED OUT this weekend for their use of a 12 year old boy making a pity plea for the SCHIP legislation. The problem? They didn't do their homework, and probably didn't count on anyone else checking either. As WAU showed yesterday, there is something clearly rotten in Denmark on this one.

Couple that with the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine in regards to conservative talk radio, and Hillary Clinton's hiring of Sandy Berger as an "adviser," AND Barack Hussien Obama's removal of the American Flag pin from his lapel, calling it "false patriotism" to wear it, it's been a busy week for the Democratics.

For their efforts, collectively and individually, Wake Up America proudly presents this weeks Rubber Chicken Award to the Democratic Party.


Running a close second, earning a Rubber Ducky Award, are CNN and WAPO, for their stance that "good news is no news" in regards to Iraq.

Keep up the great work, guys!

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back onto the playground…

Remember kindergarten? If I go back into the deep, dark recesses of my mind, I can. Letters, numbers, words, drawing, naps on little mats on the floor. School is supposed to be where you learn how to read, write, and as the old timers used to say, to “cipher.”

What part of reading, writing, and mathematics involves sex education? I suppose you could argue, tongue in cheek, that that would be multiplication, but let’s get serious here, because this is a very, very serious issue.

Our high schools are failing dismally. Students are graduating unable to do the most basic of mathematics and language skills. This has been an ongoing problem for decades, and it’s getting worse with each graduating class. Colleges are forced to offer remedial programs to prepare incoming freshman for freshman level English and algebra courses because they are coming INTO college ill prepared FOR a college education. Something is wrong with this picture.

Public education has taken on the mantle of being the be all end all in the rearing of your children. People who are in charge of the public education think that THEY KNOW BETTER how your children should be reared than you, the parents, do, and they create program after program that have NOTHING to do with teaching reading, writing, OR arithmetic. Educational theorists have TONS of ideas that colleges and universities incorporate into the Educational Instruction programs, training teachers to be everything BUT teachers.

The word “teacher” is even outmoded, having been replaced with the more politically correct “educator.”

How do I know this? Let me remind you, in case you’ve forgotten, or inform you if you didn’t know; I hold a BS in education and held licenses to teach history and government, which basically means double majors of education and history with a minor in political science. I have BEEN in the public education system, and let me tell you, from what I saw, it’s a money making racket. Textbooks and standardized testing are an industry. There is less concern with making sure that children get a quality education and learn something than there is a concern with making sure that the tests are watered down enough that my five year old Labrador retriever could take and pass them if he had a non opposable thumb. (When in doubt, check “C”). Case in point, I know one particular student who graduated over twenty years ago who had taken no higher mathematics in high school than algebra I who opened up the math portion of his ACT test, looked ahead at some of the equations based in calculus, geometry, and trigonometry, scratched his head, muttered “the hell with it,” and started circling in the “C” blocks through most of that portion of the test. He passed. Not with a low score, either.

Liberals are firmly entrenched in the education field. Many of these people who enter “educating”, screw that, let’s call it what it should be called, teaching. Many of the people who enter teaching go straight from the high school classroom to the college classroom, and then BACK into the education system into the classroom as teachers. Their entire life, from the time that they enter the system until they retire, is spent in the classroom. Is it any wonder that they are filled with a lot of theory when they have no practical experience with anything else? I was one of the rare exceptions to the rule. I was a military veteran, a veteran firefighter, and had a contractor background for my work experiences. I was totally and completely out of my element being surrounded by these feel good, think good, right speak children who were learning to be teachers. It led to more than a few rather heated debates with professors over matters of theory versus reality and an ongoing conflict (war) with campus administration who had obviously labeled me as a trouble maker.

I find it amusing, looking back now, that the handful of people whom I got along well with were one history professor in his eighties whom I considered then and still as my mentor, both in the subjects of history and politics (he had been an oil rig worker in his youth and was the FOREMOST historian on the war of northern aggression), a philosophy professor, a geology professor, and two of the campus police officers.

I digress, but it makes for a point. Teachers are not being taught to teach your children what they need to know, they’re being taught to be surrogate parents under state mandate to indoctrinate your children with what the state wants your children to know.

Think I’m off base?

Let’s see how many of you parents out there get as pissed off about THIS as I did when I considered my seven year old daughter:

Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama

July 18, 2007 1:13 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergartners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergartners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."

"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."
Watch the video:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492

Speaking to a young woman who asked a question about sex education, Obama said, "You, as a peer, can have enormous power over your age cohort but you’ve got to have some support from the schools. You certainly should not have to be fighting each and every instance by providing accurate information outside of the classroom because inside the classroom the only thing that can be talked about is abstinence."

THIS man wants to be your president, ladies and gentlemen. Kindergartners haven’t even reached PUBERTY and Barack Hussein Obama wants them to learn about sex. Oh, of course he adds the disclaimers into his statement; sure, he would HAVE to do that so that what he’s said doesn’t come across quite so dangerously. The bottom line is that Barack Hussein Obama wants sex education to start as early as kindergarten.

I want you, the reader, to take this information with you as you finish reading this article, and to think about it long and hard.

It matters.

It is very important.

Barack Hussein Obama is simply ONE politician who thinks this way. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that there aren’t others. And I will guarantee you that each and every one of them is a liberal.

In the 1960’s, Nikita Khrushchev said to the United States at the United Nations, “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!” This was later “amended” by Khrushchev who said “I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.” Take a look back through the years at public education and the growing mindset of Marxist theory that has inundated our government and our public education system. They WILL take us over without firing a shot, at this rate, if we don’t get a grip on what our children are being taught today. And they will do it by the electoral process, killing liberty not with a war, but to the delight of the indoctrinated masses…

Reading.

Writing.

Arithmetic.

From these come the foundations to teach our children to do something unthinkable. They can learn to THINK.

Leave parenting to parents. Good or bad, it's on them.

Sex Ed for kindergartners my arse.

"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future," Adolf Hitler.

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think," Adolf Hitler.

“That government is best which governs least,” Thomas Paine.

“The GREATEST sin to be committed by modern man is the sin of failure to think,” MT (yes, it’s finally time that I take credit for my own quote, and I might as well do so here. Feel free to use it and share it with others).

“I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine,” Ayn Rand, from Atlas Shrugged.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.