With Friends Like This...

I wonder if the Obama campaign will comment on this one.

What started out as a typical, Left Coast wingnut-turned-overpass jumper protesting the Iraq War turned into a HUGE traffic snafu. Highway 101 was shut down in both directions. In case you're not local or are unfamiliar with California's Central Coast, Highway 101 is THE major highway in the area. If you want to get to any of the interstate highways from here, you have to use U.S. 101 at some point. At first, I only heard about it because some of my co-workers were stranded in the gridlock. Apparently, this was a big enough deal that it made the news on KFI 640 AM in Los Angeles (which is roughly 2 1/2 hours away).

This leads me to ask a few questions:

1) Does this guy know something that we don't? Is Obama in such dire straits that supporters have begun to resort to suicide, rather than entertain the possibility of living in an America with President McCain?

2) Could this possibly be a publicity stunt? It could be an emotional plea for for us to vote for Obama, lest we see some of our neighbors, friends, and colleagues kill themselves.

Maybe this was nothing more than a case of some guy going off his meds. At any rate, I can't help but notice that you don't hear too much about right-wing lunatics threatening to jump off freeway overpasses unless they get a yard sign.

Price Check!

First off, I would like to apologize for my relative silence during this election cycle. My life beyond the blogosphere was chock-full of tasks and issues for me to address (busy at work, even busier social life, buying a house). Secondly, pretty much anything that I had to say was being said by those with voices bigger and more widely heard than mine. Now, on to the fun stuff...

Apparently, B. Hussein Obama and Joe Biden need to get someone to give them a price check on achieving the American Dream. One day, Obama is telling us that $250,000 a year is the height of achievement in the United States. Then, not more than a month later Obama sets the price at $200,000 a year. Right on the heels of that, his running mate lowers the bar to $150,000 a year. Clearly, achievement has a salary cap (and it's well below the MLB salary cap).

As a twenty-something, college-educated, single woman, I find the idea of limiting achievement repugnant. I thought the whole point of going through college, saving to buy a house, and working hard at my choosen career is so that I don't need to have the government or anyone else support me. I make a comfortable salary as an engineer (between $50,000 and $75,000), but I'm not content to just go on making the same amount of money throughout my career. I want to advance in my career and be compensated for taking on more responsibilities. It would be nice to have more disposable income so I can travel, donate more to the charities of my choosing (California's welfare programs don't count as a charity), and treat friends and family to a night out. I currently contribute to a 401(k) and would like to start putting money away in an IRA. After all, I don't plan on working forever.

I'm sure that I could do all of that and more on a $150,000 annual salary, but why should I be limited? Let's say that I decide to start a business with a couple of employees, and I clear $500,000 in gross income. My business would, therefore, meet the Obama-Biden definition of "rich". Keep in mind, that is gross income. If my business has employees, I'm required to pay them, payroll taxes, worker's compensation, and other associated overhead costs of having employees. The Obama-Biden answer to my complaint is, "Well, if you hire more employees, we'll give you a $3000 tax credit for each new employee." I'm not sure to which small businesses they've been talking, but $3000 would barely cover the cost of processing the new hire paperwork. Besides that, who starts a business with an upper limit on revenue? That's like playing a football game, but telling your team that they can only score 14 points (even if the other team racks up 51).

Isn't the whole point of America that the only limits we have are the ones that we place on ourselves? The truth is, the American Dream is priceless and should be without limitations. When success and achievement are penalized, what incentive is there for people to excel? Why would someone want to strive for success in their career or financial well-being if the government is going to come along and "spread the wealth around"? Why not wait around for someone else to be the sucker and put in all the hard work, while you kick back and wait to reap the benefits? Eventually, the golden goose is going to quit laying eggs and people will just quit working altogether...including the box boys (and girls) at the grocery store.

Hat tip to Christina, who provides some video links of the laughable-if-it-weren't-true.

Those Muscles and Helmets are Just Fabulous!

In yesterday's Democratic debate, Mike Gravel stated that the Spartans encouraged homosexuality because men fight for the guy in the trenches next to them, not for love of country or an ideal. He mocks Der Schliekmeister's position of "don't ask, don't tell" as uneducated. I do believe that Senator Gravel needs to revisit his high school's class on western civilization. If that's not possible perhaps he needs to watch the History Channel.

From the time that a Spartan boy was six or seven years old, he was taken from his family and sent to live in military barracks. This was the beginnings of his education in the art of war. Rations were meager, so the boys had to steal food to stave off starvation. This practice was, in fact, encouraged to teach them how to forage. If caught stealing, the boys were beaten severely. The boys were also put to the test in war games, meant to sharpen their skills and toughen them for actual combat. There was no headgear or padding involved; if a blow was dealt by a more skilled opponent, the recipient could die. Another part of a Spartan warrior's training was to be "apprenticed" to a seasoned warrior.

Many people have the misconception that this relationship was homosexual. This may have been the case for some, but it wasn't the rule. In the ancient world, the idea of romantic love was not the highest form of love between two people. This was because a woman was not viewed as an equal to a man. It was brotherly love, the love between equals, that was held in highest regard.

I know that Gravel served in the military, but I have to wonder what he did exactly during his service that would lead him to believe that encouraging homosexuality would improve our military's performance. In my studies of western civilization and battles that defined our culture, the bond forged between warriors in the throes of battle is one that transcends physicality. These brave souls, past and present, fight for more than survival and each other. Through strength of conviction, they are willing to lay down their lives to defend family, faith, and country.

Besides, they already tried to destroy the cowboy image with Brokeback Mountain. The least they could do is let me ogle the film version of King Leonidas.

Huh???

I believe I speak for everyone with half a brain when I ask the carefully crafted question in the the title of this post. What am I asking about, you wonder. Oh nothing special. Just the "Breck Girl" who, I might add has been featured on the cover of Esquire underneath the headline "Sexist Woman Alive" (methinks somebody in the cover art department had to clean out his desk this morning). I just got done watch the national news highlights, and I was treated to John "Two Americas" Edwards saying that his solution to ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home is to "turn up the heat on George W. Bush". This, in and of itself is not unusual to hear from today's liberal establishment, but it struck me as strange that this would be used as a selling point...in a Democratic Presidential debate.

I may be mistaken, but are we not having debates amongst potential candidates within their respective parties so that G.W. gets a replacement? Why then, would it make one iota of difference whether or not the current President's feet are going to be held to the fire at a later date? Does Edwards own a calendar? I could have sworn that Bush has only 18 more months in office. Someone needs to leave the Aqua Net alone (at least pre-debate).

Hat Tip: Christina for this video (made by people with more time than I).

Actions Speak Louder than Words

Let us ignore, for the sake of this post, that it is far too early to be making credible conjectures about who will win presidential nominations from their respective parties. Look at what happened to poor Howard "Yah!" Dean. He was winning in the polls, but ultimately lost the nomination to a man with all the charm of an undertaker. Even after adopting the voice of a monster truck rally announcer ("Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! Monster trucks at Arco Arena! Be there!). There is a lot of "focus grouping" going on, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee a sure winner.

There are a lot of names being marketed to the conservative base of the Republican party, many of them are not conservative in the most complete sense of the word. Some individuals have not even formally announced their candidacy. My short list (for this post) includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Fred Thompson.

Rudy, as "America's Mayor" makes an attractive candidate for those who prefer to focus entirely on his fiscal and national security policies. However, as a conservative who's standard is Ronald Reagan, Giuliani is far from ideal. His positions on abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration are a bit too liberal a pill for us to swallow. He has tried to make himself more palatable to pro-lifers by saying that he would appoint more "constructionist" judges to the federal courts. What happens if these newly appointed, right-leaning justices overturn Roe v. Wade (which, by the way, is recognized on both sides as being a poorly reasoned ruling)? Well, it will be left to the individual states or Congress to pass legislation regarding abortion. Would Rudy sign pro-life legislation? In typical lawyer fashion, Giuliani would want more gun control legislation, rather than enforcing the laws already on the books. However, in a curious display of contradiction, he would not prosecute people who, by definition, break the law in order to reside here.

Mitt Romney is almost in the same boat as Giuliani. After all, one cannot be governor of Massachusetts and be a Barry Goldwater conservative. For starters, when asked if his faith as a Mormon would affect his policies as President, he said that they wouldn't. Does this mean that he would abandoned Christian values entirely, or the more controversial aspects of the teachings of the LDS? Apparently, his faith didn't get in the way of some of his positions as governor of the home state of Lurch and The Swimmer (that's Kerry and Kennedy). He is only recently decided to be pro-life. I can appreciate (and in fact welcome) a change of heart in anyone on this matter, but my inner cynic tells me this was for political expediency more than a matter of conscience.

While Rudy and Mitt are officially candidates, there are two other men being shopped. Fred Thompson, former Senator from Tennessee, is being billed as the answer to a Reagan conservative's prayers. Thompson won the election for the remaining two years on Al Gore's Senate term and served there until 2002 (when he retired). He has also seen camera time in The Hunt for Red October and on Law and Order. Screen credits aside, his voting record in the Senate is demonstrably far more conservative than that of many of the Republican candidates. Though he has not formally announced his candidacy, James Dobson has come out in opposition of a man who, at present, makes a strong conservative candidate.

In a phone interview with U.S. World News & Report, Dr. Dobson said "Everyone knows [Thompson is] conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for [..., but] I don’t think he’s a Christian. At least that’s my impression." A spokesman for Focus on Family sought to clarify Dobson's statement by saying "We use that word – Christian – to refer to people who are evangelical Christians." So, what was Dr. Dobson try to say, exactly? Why split hairs when the candidate is a strong advocate for policies that one supports? The notion that one should not vote for Fred Thompson because he is not an evangelical Christian (but a Christian nonetheless) makes about as much sense as people who voted for John Kerry simply because he tried to sell himself as a Catholic. It would appear that Dobson's premptive strike on Thompson may be due to his support of another unofficial candidate.

Dobson has come out in strong support of Newt Gingrich. Now, I like Newt. I agree with him about 90 percent of the time. I enjoyed reading the Civil War "what-if" trilogy that he co-authored with William Forstchen. However, there are a few reasons that I would withhold support at this time. The first being political liabilities. He has admitted to having an affair
(ironically) during the Clinton impeachment. I believe, as a Catholic, in the forgiveness of one's sins, but would voters be willing to overlook the perception of hypocrisy? Also, there is the cloud of suspicion under which he resigned from the House of Representatives. Despite the fact that any charges of unethical behavior were dropped by the House Ethics Committee, the "drive-bys" will still smell blood in the water. I fear that pressing Gingrich to throw his hat in the ring may be the same thing that happened when Bob Dole ran in '96. Some people may simply think it's "Newt's turn to run".

I would much rather see George Allen (narrowly defeated Senator from Virginia) run for President. Allen, wise man that he is, will hopefully run in the future. As far as I'm concerned, it is far too soon to tell. All I know is that we conservatives need to remind Republicans that they need to be conservatives first, not just campaign like them.

Posers

I'm sure that even if you didn't see the Sunday news shows, you got to hear all about Hillary "I've always been a Yankees fan" Clinton, and Barack "Am I black enough?" Obama. Both of them decided to court the African American vote by going to Selma to commemorate the Bloody Sunday march of the Civil Rights movement. As tempting as it is, I will refrain from going off on a tangent about how affirmative action has gotten away from it's original intent and has simply become revenge racisim.

Hillary was downright insulting. The only way she could have been more patronizing is if she had been wearing black face and had her hair done up like a Quepie doll. Just to recount her background: Hillary was raised in Illinois, attended Wellsley College and Harvard, did a brief stint as Arkansas' first lady, spent eight years in the White House, and is currently in her second term as a U.S. Senator...from New York! Let's face it, she a blue state, upper-class, elitist snob. By all (honest) accounts, she despised her time in Arkansas. The only reason that she stayed with the "Horn-Dog in Chief" was because he was her political meal ticket. Her affected Southern drawl made her posturing all the more ridiculous (as though her pretending to be a preacher wasn't bad enough). The silver lining: she was "showbizzed" by Obama!

Now, that is not to say that Obama was not also rather silly. He himself is also a "Yankee", though he claimed to be "conceived at [Selma]" (an aide had to later clarify that he did not mean it literally). At first, I could not place the enunciation and cadence of his speech. Then it dawned on me: Obama was impersonating Jesse Jackson! Mr. "clean, bright, and articulate" was saying "befo'" where he used to say "before". "Movement" became "move-ment" (as if it were composed of two separate words). This "down-home" act is not going to be enough to hide his extreme left (bordering on Communist) views.

I'm certain there are those floating on the cyberspace ether, reading this, and sneering "You say all sorts of mean-spirited things about their delivery, but nothing about their message!" Rest assured, gentle readers, I would gladly give commentary on what they said...had they said anything at all! However, like many politicians of late, they manage to use a bucket full of words to say a thimble's worth. My purpose here is to point out the ridiculousness and the hypocrisy.

If Senators Clinton and Obama court their African American constituents by standing before congregations, invoking the Name of God, and adopting a stereotypical dialect, what do they plan to do to get the Hispanic vote? How about the "NASCAR Dads"? I have a really hard time imagining either of these two showing up at the Indy 500 to root for Dale Jr. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that if a Republican (even a RINO like McCain) were to step up to the pulpit in a house of worship and even utter anything that could be interpreted as political, they would be drowned out by cries for the ACLU and a lietmotif of "Separation of Church and State has been violated!" If the liberals keep this up, they will eat each other alive...maybe they could use some ketchup.