THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

This past weekend, I became aware of a story that should literally be described as heartwarming. An honorable man died an untimely death. He had spent his life benefiting others, and even in death, he saved one more life. Another good man had a family history of untimely deaths due to health issues. He now has a better chance at the extended life that eluded his parent and grandparent.

For more on the story on fallen soldier and organ donor Ricky Martinez, and heart transplant recipient Brian Troy, the blog “Patriotic Mom” tells the story brilliantly.

http://www.patrioticmom.us/2008/03/22/even-in-death-marine-continues-to-give/

Yet for all the feel good aspects of this story, and there are many, there is a dark sinister aspect to this situation that is being glossed over. I would call it an inconvenient truth, except that phrase has been used for nonsense. This story matters, and until it is dealt with, nothing will be learned from the noble life and tragic death of Soldier Martinez.

Ricky Martinez survived two tours in Iraq. Yet this tough soldier was unprepared for the quagmire that did him in. He was unprepared for the war zone that took his life. He was not ready for a place where riots in the streets and shooting deaths were a way of life.

He was ready for Iraq. He was not ready for Chicago.

Yes, Soldier Ricky Martinez, a survivor of both Iraqi tours, was shot to death outside a Cubs game. It was a case of mistaken identity, but that does not make him any less dead. This is what happens in war zones. People kill each other indiscriminately.

Should we pull out of Chicago? Is it a lost cause? Should we simply tell the police department to quit their jobs and move someplace where they could actually make a difference, such as Iraq?

The same people that refuse to let us win in Iraq are the ones that will not let us win in the cities in America. We should crack down on crime, but no ethnic profiling is allowed. We should work on prevention and dialogue, rather than actually building more prisons and locking criminals up. As for the death penalty for violent felons, heaven forbid we actually prevent recidivism.

One Congressman was accused of racism for daring to say that Fallujah was safer than Detroit. The only thing to condemn about this Congressman is that he apologized. He could not take the heat. Something about running for office causes people to lose their gumption.

I have no such constraints, so I will provide the pair of testicles that most people are lacking. Iraq is improving. Detroit, Chicago and Washington, DC, are getting worse.

It is not about black versus white. It is about liberalism vs conservatism.

Iraq is about conservatism. General David Petraeus was not interested in dialogue with murderous fanatics. He was interested in slowly but surely taking Iraq back, block by block. On a massive scale, he has succeeded.

Detroit, Chicago, and Washington, DC, are about liberalism. That is why crime runs rampant. It is why the death statistics for young males are staggering. Throw in New Orleans, and another example of liberal failures runs rampant. This is before even getting to the complete and total ban on guns in Washington, DC, that has allowed criminals to roam free shooting unarmed private citizens. Shockingly enough, criminals by definition alone do not obey laws, even if asked nicely.

Something about liberalism believes that good can be found in everybody, and if we wait long enough, the light will shine through and everything will be fine.

David Dinkins had run New York City into the ground. Rudy Giuliani saved the city, and was magnificent on 9/11.

When Katrina hit, Haley Barbour, the Governor of Mississippi, took charge. His counterpart in Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, threw up her hands and said “I’m so overwhelmed.” As for Ray Nagin, the best thing we can say about him is that he is not crack smoking Marion Barry.

The reason why conservatives can get things done is because they are not worried about offending people. Liberals are so caught up in political correctness that they cannot take actions without offending some constituency of beggars and criers.

Tim Pawlenty was magnificent during the Minnesota bridge crisis. The rebuilding is happening, without endless time spent on blame.

In 1994, the Northridge Earthquake rocked California. Pete Wilson hired a contractor to rebuild who made two promises to him. The job would be done on time, and within the allotted budget. The left was threatening bloody murder unless minority contractors were hired. They were concerned with appearances. Pete Wilson went with his gut. Yes, the guy was a white male, but more importantly, he had a track record of successful work. The job was completed early, and under budget.

This was typical Pete Wilson. A man who was told he was leading a state that was ungovernable rolled up his sleeves and governed. The fact that he was a former marine is no surprise. Military men are disciplined, and Wilson’s discipline was enough to get California through floods, fires, Earthquakes, riots, and a monstrous budget deficit that was a surplus when he left.

Contrast this with Detroit today. Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is mired in scandal. Some will say that since this is a sexual scandal, it should be ignored. The scandal is not the sex itself. The real scandal, that most will not mention, is that this man has been allowed to neglect his city for so long. Also, for those wanting to play the race card, the prosecutor coming after the Mayor is a black woman. Kym Worthy is not interested in bringing down a black man. She is trying to bring down an incompetent and corrupt politician that happens to be black.

All of this matters because the left in this country badly wants the troops to come home immediately. They love and support the troops, and want them to get out of a failed and corrupt plutocracy. They want them to come home to the safe confines of America.

Some safe confines. They can blame George W. Bush all they want, but some cities in America have been broken long before he was in politics.

The bottom line is that the few temporary respites in American cities have been due to conservative governance. Welfare reform saved Wisconsin and other states that were given block grants. Midwestern republican governors may be nondescript, but government is not sexy. Jim Edgar, George Voinovich, John Engler and Tommy Thompson may or may not all be the same person, but they got the job done.

Fiscal conservatives such as Rudy Giuliani and Richard Riordan turned around New York and Los Angeles. Brett Schundler was a godsend to Jersey City.

Feelings are irrelevant. Results are what matter. The troops have performed magnificently in Iraq and Afghanistan. They fight over there so that we do not have to fight terrorists here at home. The least we can do is give them a decent quality of life when they get back home.

Ricky Martinez had the heart to fight for America. He even gave his heart to a dying man, giving a complete stranger a new lease on life.

This does not excuse the fact that Ricky Martinez was taken from us far too early. He was a casualty of a senseless war going on under a city where an incompetent and corrupt administration could not protect him from danger. His right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was violated. He could have walked down the streets of Baghdad. Given how few casualties we have had in this war overall (each one of them tragic), he most likely would have survived.

If only the streets of liberal Chicago were as safe. He might be alive today.

I pray that the police be allowed to go into the worst cities in America and take any and all measures necessary to restore order. Tear gas and rubber bullets can be a start, but the political correctness must stop. We must take our cities back, block by block.

These cities are war zones. The goal of a war is to win. We took back Fallujah. By allowing the same tactics that turned around Iraq, slowly but surely, Detroit can be rescued.

I pray that the Martinez family has the heart to soldier on. Ricky Martinez was a hero in life and in death, but that does not excuse the fact that he was taken from the world far too early because the nation that he swore to protect and defend consisted of a city that refused to do the same for him.

eric

Several days ago, I attended a lecture by Reed Rubinstein that was sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition. The topic was the terrorist organization CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Various individuals, including columnist Mark Steyn, have been the victim of Jihads waged against them.

http://www.marksteyn.com/

Yet one man who deserves special attention is Andrew Whitehead. Mr. Whitehead served his country in the U.S. Navy, and was called out of retirement in a different way after 9/11. His website anti-CAIR led to him being sued by CAIR.

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

With pro bono help from Mr. Rubinstein, Mr. Whitehead gave CAIR a judicial smackdown.

CAIR unfortunately still exists, but they will be defeated as long as brave men like Andrew Whitehead continue to speak up. With that, below is my interview with Andrew Whitehead, along with his pre-interview note of caution.

“Keep in mind that these are, unless otherwise noted, my personal opinions.”

1) What was your Navy service like, and how did it shape you into the person you are today? What were your best and worst experiences serving in the military?

My best experience was meeting the people who shared my commitment to defending the country. You really have to experience working with volunteers in defense of what makes this country great to fully understand what I mean.

My worst experience was when I was stationed on recruiting duty in New York in the late 80’s. A lot of illegal recruiting and dirty tactics were employed by the district and covered up by senior enlisted and officers alike…it soured my outlook on Chief Petty Officers to the point where I refused to take another advancement exam for the next eight years. I spent 15 years as a First Class Petty Officer…I was never promoted again after my 5th year of service. (I was an early promotion to First Class Petty Officer based on my evaluations and test scores.) Up to then, I had been promoted five times in five years.

2) Where were you on 9/11, what was your life like on that day?

I was in Virgina Beach, retired for about six years when I turned on the TV about four minutes before the second plane hit the tower. I had just called out to my wife and asked her how could a plane hit a tower in unrestricted visibility…we were guessing maybe a heart attack or stroke by one of the pilots and the remaining pilot being confused…when the second plane hit. I then told her, “We’re at war”.

3) How did 9/11 lead to your setting up your anti-CAIR website?

When I was stationed in Iceland for my final tour, a fellow First Class Petty Officer asked me to his home for Thanksgiving. I knew him to be a God-fearing, good person. I couldn’t go because I had already accepted another invitation. He was a quiet person…he later made Chief Petty Officer and was assigned to the Pentagon. I knew that Top Hand had been hit in the Pentagon. For two years or so I purposely did not look at the casualty list because I knew Top Hand was staffed by communicators and I was a communicator and didn’t want to know if any of my friends had been killed. Another service friend from Iceland told me…my heart sank…it was the sailor who invited me to Thanksgiving. He had been pinned and burned to death.

I had known about CAIR; I started Anti-CAIR the next day.

4) What should Americans know about CAIR?

That CAIR is focused on destroying our country’s form of government.

Yes, you can quote me on that.

Details can be found on our web site and also those of Steven Emerson, Joe Kaufman, Daniel Pipes…and many others.

5) How did CAIR try to hurt you personally?

I’m not sure that they tried to hurt me personally, I believe they go after anyone who tells the truth about them. I’m actually surprised that the worse thing they called me was “xenophobic”. I had to look that word up…it wasn’t used much until 9-11.

6) What are some moderate Muslim organizations that Americans should know about? Are they an effective counter to CAIR?

I am cautiously optimistic about the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, run by Dr. Z. Jasser. The more I look, the more I like; but I am reserving unqualified support at this time.

7) What are your opinions of the 2008 Presidential race?

We have no “political opinions” in the race; we call on all candidates to remember that the oath of office requires them to defend the Constitution. We are hopeful that the battle against Islamist terror will continue.

8.) Is the flap over Barack Obama’s pastor a legitimate story, or much ado about nothing? Do they have ties to CAIR or other radical Muslim groups, or is this a non-story?

We don’t comment on political questions like this one; we have readers of all political persuasions and we do not want to alienate any of them.

9) Is Hillary’s service on the Armed Services Committee sufficient preparation to be Commander in Chief?

Political question. However, I will say that President Lincoln did pretty well, didn’t he? President Washington? Just remember to look at the whole apple before you take a bite…that goes for all candidates.

10) Does John McCain’s personal story matter from an electoral standpoint? Should it?

Loaded question; remember, I’m retired Navy, so I do have a prejudice. I’ll pass.

11) Who are your 3 heroes, be they political, military, or other?

My personal choices:

Jesus Christ, Winston Churchill, and Ronald Reagan.

12) Did you support the Iraq War in the beginning? Why or why not?

Yes.

We are opposed to any political system that excludes any group of citizens from participating in the full benefits of citizenship based on non-merit factors.

 
13) How do you feel about the Iraq War now? Why?

The UN security council called sanctions on Iraq for over a decade…then did nothing until the United States chose to enforce sanctions unilaterally. If the US did nothing in light of the UN sanctions, we risked looking like a paper tiger (even a blind man could see that the security council was deliberately “tweaking” the US). The UN security council deliberately painted the US into a corner on the Iraq question and then left us out to hang when we invaded.

The US did two things in invading Iraq:

1. Called the UN bluff, showed the UN security council for what it is; a debating society with no moral right to speak for anyone. (Why is China, a dictatorship, on the UN security council?)

2, Enforced the will of the UN which the UN is unwilling to enforce itself.

14) What do you think will be the legacy of the Bush Presidency? If you had 5 minutes to interview Bush and Cheney, what would you say to them or ask them?

As to legacy, I don’t know.

I would ask them why they sold out Israel to appease the Saudis.

15) What other political views are you passionate about, and are you pleased or concerned with how those issues are being handled?

This question might make people angry at Anti-CAIR no matter how I answer it. I’ll pass.

16) What can ordinary citizens do to help win the War on Terror?

Keep their eyes and ears open. If your neighbor has 400 pounds of fertilizer in his shed and lives in an apartment, it might be cause for alarm? When traveling, listen to what your fellow passengers are doing and saying…just be alert and share your concerns with law enforcement.

We don’t have to become a nation of Gestapo agents; just good citizens keeping an eye out for each other. (Like mothers who watch over all children at the playground.)

17) How would you like to be remembered? What should people say about Andrew Whitehead 100 years from now?

Wow. If I am remembered at all; “He feared God, loved his family and country”

I would like to thank Andrew Whitehead for his graciousness towards me, as well as his vigilance. It is a dangerous world we live in, and men like Andrew Whitehead contribute to reducing the danger and increasing the quality of life for civilized people everywhere.

eric

Dr. Condoleeza Rice called Barack Obama and apologized to him for an incident that was not her fault. Mr. Obama might wish to show the same class and courtesy towards her and offer an apology of his own.

For those who spend way too much time focusing on political nonsense (this column), rogue members of the State Department (redundant, I know) took a peek at the confidential files of Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama.

While there is no evidence at this time that anything other than curiosity by low level people was involved, already the conspiracy mongers want to blame President Bush. These people would be willing to hold impeachment hearings after he has already left office. Perhaps they can camp on his Crawford Ranch and try to evict him from his living quarters.

Dr. Condoleeza Rice is the Secretary of State, and the buck did stop with her. While the CEO of IBM or Coca Cola most likely had nothing to do with some mid-level manager they never met harassing a subordinate they never met, the top dog is responsible for the behavior of all the young puppies. So Dr. Rice had the employees that looked at the files fired. She called Obama to personally apologize.

While Obama did actually concede that he appreciated the call (how gracious of him), he wanted a full scale investigation. The investigation already happened. The bad people were caught and fired. The system worked.

Again, some would argue that Dr. Rice was not responsible for what her subordinates or associates did, but that argument usually falls short, justifiably so.

It is for that reason that Barack Obama should call up Dr. Rice and apologize to her for completely different reasons.

Pastor Jeremiah Wright is about as useful to society as colon cancer. This is well established. However, his overall comments about entire swaths of people are still less stinging then his attack on specific individual, that being Dr. Rice. In one of his rambling, incoherent diatribes, he referred to her as “Condoskeeza.”

For those who do not have “street cred (cred being short for credibility for the ultra white readers of this blog),” a “skeeza,” or “skeezer,” is another way of calling a woman a “skank,” a “ho,” a “slut,” and other names that are every third word in Snoop Doggy Dogg albums.

One can have reasonable disagreements about the Iraq War without finding such language disgusting. I have defended Snoop Doggy Dogg in the past because he does not attack all women. He is only attacking social climbers that use men for their money. The women he attacks are that way, and he is right not to back down.

Yet Condoleeza Rice is a classy, dignified woman. She is a classical pianist. She is proper and formal, dressing tastefully, and exuding class, grace, and dignity. She is the former Provost of Stanford University. She is one of the world’s foremost experts on Russia. Also, she might be one of the most eligible bachelorettes in America, if for no other reason than she is obsessed with the National Football League. She has openly stated that being NFL Commissioner would be her dream job. If President Bush truly was a dictator, he would ensured she got the job, rather than saying “it is not in my power to give.”

I want to make it clear that I am not blaming Barack Obama for Pastor Wright’s comments. They are separate individuals. I do not even blame Barack Obama for his wife Michelle’s outrageous comments, unless their is evidence that he is orchestrating the comments behind the scenes. This evidence does not exist. Unlike the Clintons, who coordinate every below the belt remar, Obama seems to be the innocent victim of loose cannons. His issue is one of reining in those that are doing him harm, not one of deliberately coordinated malice.

Yet the fact remains that a prominent Obama supporter made disgusting remarks towards a genteel, refined woman that went beyond all bounds of civility and decency.

The media glossed over these remarks, instead focusing on Pastor Wright’s diatribes towards America at large.

Yet a good comparison to Pastor Wright would be Don Imus. Imus was not fired because he used a phrase that can be seen as derogatory to black people. He was fired because he used a phrase at specific individuals that were private citizens. These women were dignified, and the “joke,” was seen as a personal attack against innocent people that did not warrant being treated that way.

Pastor Wright basically called Condoleeza Rice a “nappy headed ho,” just not in as many words. I am not an expert on skeezer statistics, but I assume their hair is on the nappier side of life.

Also, Barack Obama has held himself out to be a paragon of virtue. This means we expect more of him. Hillary Clinton taking vicious cheap shots at people is seen as her typica lbehavior. Water is wet, the Sun rises in the East, and the Clintons are the politics of personal destruction.

Based on what I have seen, and the narrative that is being told, Obama is better than that. He should prove his image as a uniter and offer a phone call to Dr. Rice apologizing for the remarks of Pastor Wright.

Otherwise, if Ann Coulter or Bill Cunningham refer to Michelle Obama as a skeezer, rather than the successful, accomplished woman she is, I am not sure I will take the time to care.

To quote President Bush, “Dr. Condoleeze Rice is a fabulous person. Period!”

Now it is time to go listen to the black women of America do their imitation of crickets chirping.

Oprah…your sister was attacked. Well?

eric

The Daily Kos website has been described by many as a hate site. I have decided to start posting there to see if this is the case.

I can say that there are people on that site who are normal human beings. They disagreed with me, but returned my civility with an equal volley of courtesy.

Many felt I was linking Obama to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), and terrorism. This is not the case, and I made it clear that the only reason I mentioned Obama and CAIR in the same blog entry was because they were discussed by two different people at the same event. Obama was in the news, but in my opinion has nothing to do with CAIR.

Yet the stereotype of the site, overall, is truthful. Most of the commenters were not reasonable. It is not that they are liberal. I know plenty of normal liberals. Heck, I am dating one. Being liberal does not make one hateful. Yet when people of like angry minds whip each other into a frenzy, it is no surprise that the result is a rage that devastates rational thought with a ferocity of an Atlanta tornado.

I recently wrote that I don’t care for CAIR. Most people would applaud a guy who has a problem with terrorists posing as civilized human beings (I am referring to CAIR, not the Daily Kossacks). Yet many on the Daily Kos site apparently find Islamofacist supporters less threatening than republicans. My posting on a left wing site was a very threat to the foundation of our democracy.

So once again, using the initials LL for liberal lunatics and RR for myself, a reasonable republican, I offer you evidence that many of the Daily Kossacks are as barbaric as advertised. I would wash their mouths out with soap, but I am not sure some of these descendants of hippies would own such a product or know what to do with it.

RR: I believe that the (Arab-Israeli) conflict is 100% the fault of the Arabs and 0% the fault of the Jews. There is no cycle of violence, just Israeli self defense against Arab terror. Unless Israelis are blowing up innocent Arab civilians, (which I would deplore) I will remain feeling this way.

LL: ummm… there are Arab Jews…you’re apparently racist and ignorant. how appropriate! quick lesson: one is a faith, the other is an ethnicity

RR: There are Israeli Arabs. There are not Arab Jews. Thank you for contributing to my blog.

LL: Are you ignorant or just stupid? Of course there are Arab Jews. There were pretty good sized populations of Egyptian Jews, Iraqi Jews, Yemenite Jews, etc. Most of them are living in Israel now, but they were definitely part of Arab culture before discrimination caused them to leave.

Neither the Jews or the Arabs ever considered the Jews living in Arab countries as anything other than Jews. The fellow could not grasp this. Then others brought up the Palestinians.

RR: There is no Palestinian history. Palestinians are a fictional invented people. Jordan murdered 1 million of them. Yassir Arafat was an Egyptian. There is no such thing as a Palestinian. They are simply “defective Arabs.” They got kicked out of every Arab country they were in because their leaders tried to overthrow those governments. No, the children are not to blame. Yet those same children would not be suffering if 22 Arab governments did not stop exploiting them to take the focus off their own failed theocracies. Their homeland is Jordan. Jordan will not let them in. This has nothing to do with Israel.

LL:If you’d like to spew Likud propaganda…please take your silly rantings to The Free Republic or some other idiotic website.

LL: We would support Likud because of any of these reasons:

I still believe that despite everything that mathematics tells me, Hillary Clinton will defeat Barack Obama for the demagoguic nomination for President. Every indicator says Obama has it all but wrapped up. Yet the “all but” part makes me queasy.

To avoid rehashing past columns, I support John McCain, but like Obama as a person. I have little positive feelings towards Hillary. I fear that she will win.

The way the rules are set up, Obama looks like he is in the catbird seat. Yet Hillary will win because she will simply break the rules and get away with it. Rules have mattered to the Clintons in the same way that taxes mattered to Leona Helmsley. With all respect to Chelsea, I wonder if Hillary would leave her profits from commodities to Socks the Cat.

Hillary appears to have failed to be granted revotes to the democrats in Florida and Michigan. Some will say that because their is no do over, that this issue is now irrelevant. This line of thinking could not be more wrong. It goes to the very heart of Hillary’s “character.”

For those who actually have lives outside of politics, below is a recap of events that have left the democrats as confused and disorganized as the late Will Rogers remembered.

Both political parties had in their rules that the only states that were allowed to hold primaries or caucuses before Super Tuesday, February 5th, were Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. It used to only be Iowa and New Hampshire, but those two overwhelmingly white states were given some diversity. South Carolina has a strong black presence, and Nevada has many Hispanics.

I personally find these rules to be completely idiotic. There is no reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should get to go first every four years. Why not Delaware and Nebraska? How about Vermont and Idaho? I support small states playing a role, but it should rotate. The gutlessness of presidential candidates is why this antiquated structure remains. Rudy Giuliani tried to bypass those states, and his strategy failed to break the stranglehold that Iowa and New Hampshire possess.

As I said, the rules are ridiculous. Yet they are the rules, and without rules, there is chaos on par with “Lord of the Flies.” Obama understands this. Hillary does not. Actually, she does. She just does not care. Everything is about her, not society.

Florida and Michigan broke the rules. They called the bluff of the national parties, and the national parties so far have not blinked. The democrats promised not to campaign in Florida and Michigan. The media keeps repeating the mantra that both Hillary and Obama respected and honored this promise.

This is not true. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary was. While that is not “campaigning” in the sense of running ads or knocking on doors, the playing field was not level. The ballots should have been torn up or altered to have all the democrats on them.

Florida was even more dishonest for Hillary. While she did not publicly campaign, she did hold private fundraisers in Florida. This was apparently within the rules. I mean after all, just because you ask somebody for a large campaign donation does not mean you are also asking for their vote. So fundraising is not campaigning. It depends what the meaning of “is” is.

Then immediately after the polls closed, Hillary held a press conference to declare victory and thank the people of Florida. This is not considered campaigning because the polls were closed. Nevertheless, she was still in Florida, and she was still claiming victory in a contest that was illegal. The woman does not stop.

Before going any further, another brief Lord of the Flies analogy can be found in the word “samneric.” Sam and Eric were two brothers, but by the end of the story, they were lumped together. Such is the same with Florida and Michigan, even though the situations are totally different.

Florida is a republican state. While both parties agreed to the rules, it was a republican legislature and Governor that sanctioned the move to a primary date earlier than the rules allowed. While the democrats would be lying if they said that they were against the move the whole time, that has not stopped them before.

Michigan is controlled by democrats. It has a strong union presence. The democrats of Michigan were behind the move, and can only blame themselves for their elimination.

Both states stubbornly went ahead and held primaries anyway. Hillary wanted the results to count because she won. Obama wanted the results not to count because he lost. So while both of them had a biased agenda, it is the truth that matters. The rules were clear, and Michigan and Florida broke the rules. They were stripped of their delegates, and the results from those two states should not count.

Hillary will not accept this. She speaks about disenfranchised voters, and alludes to the 2000 Florida fiasco. All fraud would be cleaned up if only we counted all the votes, which coincidentally would help her. She keeps saying that it is not about her. Yes, it is. If the poor suffering people of Florida and Michigan do not like what has happened, they can fire their elected representatives. That is playing by the rules.

So since Hillary was not able to get results that should never have counted to count, she then suggested that the states revote. A “do over” would satisfy everybody.

This is not feasible because no do over would be exactly representative of how the results would have been several months earlier. Candidates, and elected officials, have ebbs and flows. Unlike nations where the party in power can just call elections, our Presidential elections happen the first Tuesday in November every four years. Many of these elections would have had different results had they been held months, weeks, or even days earlier or later.

Again, both Hillary and Obama had rational reasons for their do over positions. Hillary felt she would win, and Obama was concerned he would lose. Since Obama is ahead, a do over is a bigger risk for him. Thankfully, both states have decided that a do over is not doable.

So since the rules are what they are, and the math does not add up, what is next for Hillary? Well, if the conventional wisdom holds, which it has not in this election, she wins Pennsylvania. Even if she win by a large margin, the next two states are Indiana and North Carolina. Obama will win North Carolina. It has a large black population, and he is currently pulling in 90% of the black vote. Hillary and her husband gave that to him by their race baiting conduct in South Carolina. The proportional representation allocation of delegates simply does not allow Hillary to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. So Hillary has to smash through any ethical line to win.

This is not about the Superdelegates, or as I refer to them, democratic party poobahs that exist because the party of the people is controlled by elites that think the people are too stupid to make their own decisions. It fits in perfectly with their philosophy of governing.

The only question about the Superdelegates is whether they loathe the Clintons more than they fear them. Many Superdelegates on the fence owe the Clintons for their political survival. If they come out for Obama, they had better pray obama wins, or their careers could be destroyed. Anybody that questions the power the Clintons have should ask the many people that have fought, bled, gone to jail, and even died for them.

Yet this is not about the Superdelegates. Trying to gain the support of the Superdelegates is within the rules. Obama may have the popular vote, but this is irrelevant. The Superdelegates are not bound by the popular vote. While pursuing them as the popular vote loser would make Hillary a hypocrite given her plans to abolish the Electoral College after Al Gore’s loss in 2000, she can be hypocritical without breaking rules or playing foul.

Her violating the rules comes in the form of the pledged delegates themselves. Despite her many denials that only fools took at face value, she has now admitted that she will be open to trying to poach delegates that are pledged to Obama.

This will not be a violation of the letter of the law. Pledged delegates were bound to their candidates until 1982. To avoid a repeat of the imbroglio between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter (if only they had both lost), the rules were changed to allow pledged delegates to back a candidate other than the one they had promised their pledge. This may seem odd, but a party has every right to change its rules.

Yet Hillary would be violating the spirit of the law by poaching delegates. The fact that it would create a civil war in the democratic party that would make 1968 seem like a holiday party is irrelevant. Being selfish is not a rules violation. What matters is that Hillary s asking people to deny what the intent of the word “pledged” means.

A pledge is a promise. It is an oath. It may not be legally binding, but it should be morally binding. Otherwise, we get the politics of parsing, and statements about “no controlling legal authority.” Any delegate that promises to support one candidate, and then votes for another one, has lied. To win an election by recruiting liars is noxious. It is odious. It is…Clintonian.

Some would argue that pledged delegates, like all voters, should be entitled to “buyer’s remorse.” This argument does not wash.

Buyer’s remorse can take place for individual voters. They have a deadline, that being the election. Any day they change their mind before the election is a decision made before the official deadline. This is within the rules.

What is not allowed is to wait until after deadlines have passed to try and change the rules. I can think of several defeated Presidential candidates that would have liked a revote. Two good examples of liberal rulebreaking were a pair of Senate races.

In New Jersey, where corruption is as self evident as water is wet, Robert Torricelli resigned in disgrace. The deadline had passed for a new candidate to be chosen. Nevertheless, a liberal judge broke the rules, and allowed Frank Lautenberg to be on the ballot. Some say he won fair and square. No he did not. He should not have been allowed to be on the ballot. He could have run as an independent.

In Minnesota, the tragic death of Paul Wellstone did not change the fact that it was illegal to put the name of another democrat on the ballot. Walter Mondale was allowed on the ballot, and only the backlash from a disgusting funeral turned liberal pep rally prevented the democrats from illegally winning this seat as well.

In Missouri, another tragic death took democrat Mel Carnahan’s life. While his wife Jean ran for his seat, his name was left on the ballot. The rules were followed with regards to this point. There was hanky panky regarding a judge allowing some liberal counties to have an extra hour to vote, but that is a separate issue.

So those on the left that complain about the 2000 election should look at their own conduct in the New Jersey and Minnesota Senate races.

Once an official makes a pledge based on party guidelines, those guidelines should mean something, even if the amended 1982 decision created an ethical pretzel.

In 2004, the democrats had buyers remorse about Howard Dean. That conclusion was come to before the primaries. Voters switched to John Kerry, which was totally ethical. Yet after Kerry won the nomination, many democrats had buyers remorse about him. Their hatred for President Bush united them around Kerry, but not with enthusiasm. Many democrats wanted John Edwards, and the republicans privately admitted that Edwards would have been the tougher opponent in 2004 (and I suspect in 2008 as well).

Yet to change the candidate after the votes are in would be akin to replacing the teams in the Superbowl because their star players get injured, making the game less attractive. Network executives probably wanted to let the Packers and Brett Favre be in the Superbowl, but the Giants won the right to play in the game fairly. They certainly wanted the Colts to play the Patriots a week earlier, but could not invalidate the Colts losing to the Chargers.

Without rules, everything breaks down. Bill Clinton did not commit a sex crime. He committed perjury, a legal crime. Excuses such as “everybody lies about sex,” and “well that’s just Arkansas politics,” and, “nobody is perfect, we are all flawed,” are complete garbage in terms of rebuttals.

I cannot tell if Bill learned his ethics from Hillary or vice versa. Yet either way, this is a  couple that will play the race card and then justify it by stating that republicans will do it later on anyway in the general election. The republicans are scared to death of this approach, but that is irrelevant.

Everybody does not violate the rules. Many people work within the system that is in front of them. Otherwise poor people would be allowed to rob rich people because they are hungry or homeless. Sympathy for those that did not get a fair shake in life is a value judgment. It is not a legal justification for crimes, which are violations against society.

I remain unconvinced that either of the Clintons care about society. It is for this reason that no trick is too dirty, no charge too scurrilous, no words too hateful, no action too vengeful, and no lie too brazen for this pair of moralists with little morals of their own.

If there is a way that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination without violating not only the rules of politics, but the rules of decency, then she should persist. Yet given that the numbers simply do not add up, she should for once in her political life show some grace and class. She fought a tough race, and she got beat.

There are people in America that are not disgusted with the Clintons. Those numbers are dwindling. It is not due to sexism, racism, or anything other than the fact that Hillary Clinton is finally being seen under the prism that William Safire described her.

Hillary is a congenital liar.

Unless we can go back in time and reverse the Presidential elections of 1992 and 1996, which I am against doing, then Hillary should embrace Obama publicly, stab him in the back privately as she did with John Kerry in 2004, and prepare for her comeback in 2012.

The Clintons will most likely never be gone from the scene. Yet if the rules are obeyed, we might get a two year respite from them.

eric

I had the pleasure a couple days ago of witnessing a presentation by Attorney Reed Rubenstein on the danger that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, poses to Western civilization. CAIR is not, as it claims, the “Muslim NAACP.” CAIR is a terrorist organization.

I had suspected this for some time, but the evidence presented by Mr. Rubinstein was overwhelming. I had planned to see his presentation in Atlanta, but I was unable to attend. Luckily, a good friend, Richard Baehr, informed me that he would be in Chicago three days later at the same time as me.

Before getting to the substance of the presentation, a pair of people at the presentation had relevant things to say.

The first gentleman shall remain nameless at his request. There are very few republicans in his neighborhood, and his safety is paramount. He was Barack Obama’s neighbor for several years, and he and Obama chatted about politics many times. While he considers Mr. Obama as “dangerous” for America, he made it crystal clear to me that he would only allow me to publish his comments if I also mentioned that as a human being, he liked Obama very much. I agreed.

He stated that Obama was always polite, gentlemanly, and friendly. Obama never interrupted him when he was speaking, although his wife Michelle did. He found Barack Obama down to Earth, but not Michelle. When offered a $200 credit per child, Ms. Obama sneered at the insignificance of $400 credited back for her two children. For this anonymous man, $600 for his three children was real money. Yet Barack Obama was a pleasant man through their entire interactions. He never got angry, although his wife did.

The statement that Barack Obama made that “chilled” this man was when he stated that “The United States must take a more ‘neutral’ and ‘evenhanded’ view of Israel and the Middle East.” Many do not and cannot understand this, but those are codewords that many see as antisemitic. There is no moral equivalence between the parties. One side is defending its right to exist, and the other side indiscriminately murders civilians.

So Obama is not “dangerous” because he is a bad person. Far from it. He is just naive and uninformed about the dynamics of the conflict. However, this same man made it clear that he wants to go after Obama on issues, which is what I want. He finds attacks on his character, such as the controversy over his middle name, distracting, and wrong.

He did offer one last humorous anecdote about Barack Obama. In 2004 Obama was driving a gas guzzling SUV. After John Kerry got caught driving one, and then trying to pass it off as his wife’s, it hurt his campaign. Two weeks after the Kerry campaign faced this flap, Obama, perhaps by complete coincidence, got rid of his SUV and bought a more environmentally friendly car.

Another person at this presentation in Chicago, as previously stated, was Richard Baehr of American Thinker. Like me, Richard wants to raise the level of political discourse. He is a sound political analyst and a good person, which is why I was troubled when the Daily Kos website took time out to launch a vicious smear against him. They even attacked me as well, although barely. I normally would never link to the Kossacks site, but I want people to see what pure hatred for a good person looks like. Also below is a link to my interview with Richard Baehr.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/11/my-interview-with-richard-baehr/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/14/111857/479/438/476537

One comment on that hit piece is my response.

Nevertheless, one reason why men such as Richard Baehr are under attack is because Republican Jews are hated for their religion and their ideology. This hatred is also directed at non-Jewish republicans and Jewish liberals. Many on the far left see real threats where none exist. More importantly, they see no threat where a significant one exists. This brings things back to CAIR.

Reed Rubenstein was the attorney for Andrew Whitehead for the case of CAIR vs Whitehead. A similar case of significance was U.S. vs Holy Land Foundation. Part of Mr. Rubenstein’s presentation included a CD that contained documents in abundance. Mr Rubenstein did not want us to take his word for what he had to say. He challenged the audience in attendance to view every piece of documentary evidence.

He started by pointing out that the (Jayson Blair Times) New York Times, in an article on March 14th, 2007, wrote that “CAIR is partially funded by by donors closely identified with Persian Gulf governments.” The JBT also incorrectly stated that “Chapters of CAIR are franchises.”

The Justice Department sees it differently. Their documents states that “Moreover, from its founding, CAIR conspired with other affilaites of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”

Additionally, the evidence in the case led Mr. Rubenstein to logically conclude that the National CAIR controls the branches.

The case that led to this lecture began when Andrew Whitehead, a retired military man enraged over 9/11, started a website called “anti-CAIR.”

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

CAIR then sent Whitehead a cease and desist letter, demanding he take his site down. To his credit, Whitehead refused to back down. He published the letter, and then CAIR sued Whitehead for defamation.

For those who have not figured it out, terrorist organizations try to use America’s tolerant laws against us. Yet in this case, the terrorists have miscalculated. Their strategy worked in Britain because England’s defamation laws put the burden of proof on the defendant. In America the plaintiff must prove their case. The process of discovery allows those accused to turn the tables and bury plaintiffs in document requests.

Mr. Whitehead’s lawyer, Mr. Rubenstein (whose firm took the case pro bono), sent 300 document requests to CAIR, asking for detailed information about every aspect of their operation. CAIR then filed an amended motion for judgment, which dropped most of the claims. The only claims remaining were those that claimed CAIR was a terror supporting front group, and that CAIR sought to overthrow the constitutional government of the United States.

When asked why CAIR quotes directly from the Hamas charter, they stated this was not true. When asked to prove this, CAIR stated that they could not find a single copy of the charter. Apparently CAIR does not know how to use the internet. They also denied that Hamas murdered innocent civilians, and that it was a “foreign jurisdictional issue.”

When CAIR is faced with a motion to compel them to produce more documents linking them to terrorism, they quickly decide to settle the case. Mr. Whitehead’s website is allowed to stay up, and he is not required to apologize for or retract any of his comments. It was a victory for Andrew Whitehead and a defeat for CAIR.

So what did the case turn up that CAIR is so desperate to keep out of court?

CAIR was set up as a cell of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have been intertwined with the Islamic Association for Palestine, which is closely allied with the Muslim Student Association. The Holy Land Foundation played a key role. CAIR encouraged people to donate to the HLF. The HLF then sent the money to Hamas.

The IAP has since been shut down, and the HLF was shut down after 9/11. CAIR handled the media, law, and politics. The IAP were the public relations people, handling education and organizing. The HLF were the money people, bankrolling the organizations. These organizations all have logos with crossed swords, not typical of groups truly committed to peaceful activities.

CAIR has top level people who have expressed that “The loss of Palestine in 1948 is second only to the loss of the Caliphate.” The rationale for CAIR was expressed in October of 1993, that being to “advance the brotherhood agenda, reduce Jewish influence, and mobilize all Muslims to join in anti-Israel activity.” On June 12th, 1995, a New Republic article described a meeting where a young holy warrior asked for a legal ruling with regards to killing Jews. The homicidal elder responded that “Killing Jews is a good deed, and does not require a legal ruling. Just bring the dead body.”

CAIR’s website on September 17th, 2001, listed three websites that people could donate to with regards to helping 9/11 victims. One of the links was the Red Cross, which was legitimate. Another link was the “NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund.” No such fund existed. Clicking on that link took people straight to the HLF website. On September 26th, 2001, slight changes were made to CAIR’s site. The link listed as the fictitious NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund was replaced with a direct listing of the HLF site. The Red Cross site was still linked, as was another site labeled the “Global Relief Fund.” That link led to a place where people could make contributions, which went straight to funding Al Queda and the Taliban.

CAIR Rallies include people waving Hezbollah flags, and CAIR leaders wearing the Keffiyah (head covering) with the insignia of the Al Aqsa Marty’s Brigade.

The way to convict such terrorists living in America is usually by getting them on visa fraud. Many terrorists come here legally but the overstay their visas. Visa fraud is the mobster equivalent of tax evasion.

Also, as part of their aspirations, CAIR on one occasion offered a doctored photo outside the Capitol during their press conferences. Blondes become brunettes, and Muslim women without head coverings are given head coverings. Perhaps they do know how to use the internet, or at least Photo Shop.

CAIR claims that they condemn “terrorist attacks,” but they never once condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, the Taliban, or any Muslim country.

CAIR has sued David Frum, National Review Online, and uses liberal media outlets to further their cause. They normally go through the JBT, the ACLU, and the National Council of Churches.

Whenever anybody criticizes any Muslim with either terror connections or suggestions that Jews immolate themselves through “dialogue” with terrorists, those on the wrong side claim anti-Muslim bigotry. For example, Congressman Keith Ellison wants Jews to “talk to CAIR.”

In 1993, worried about being recorded (which they were), CAIR people stated that “We cannot support Samah.” Samah is Hamas spelled backwards. In 1999 the head of CAIR endorsed suicide bombers in the name of Islam. In 2007, CAIR criticized “right wingers and ‘Neozionists.” Neozonionists is a way of confirming that “Neoconservatives,” or “Neocons” for short, are just Jews.

CAIR Action Alert # 508 is a false denial by CAIR that they wish to destroy the holy shrines of other faiths.

Also, CAIR plays the victim card to perfection when they are the ones promoting hatred, bigotry, and intolerance. Examples of this include Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to accept blind people with guide dogs as passengers because it violates their faith.

CAIR is also insecure. They feel compelled to compete with Jews and non-Muslims on every level. Since there are 6 million Jews in America, CAIR claims there are 7 million Muslims. This is not true. Pew research reflects only 2.5 million Muslims. Yes, there are Persians in Los Angeles, and plenty of Arabs in Dearborn, Detroit, and Minneapolis, but the 2.5 million number is accepted by reputable sources such as Pew.

2006 FBI statistics reflect that in that calendar year, their were 156 anti-Muslim crimes, and 967 anti-Jewish crimes. CAIR claims that Muslims are simply scared to report their crimes. CAIR claims 50,000 members on their website, but only lists 1700 members for IRS reporting purposes. It is unlikely that they are lying to the IRS, since the IRS can punish them in ways the media cannot. If the IRS digs, their operation crumbles. In 2000, CAIR reported $732,000 in dues. In 2007, dues were $58,000. In Maryland, gigantic Mosques are being built. The Mosques are empty. There are no parishioners inside. The Mosques are for appearances, and the illusion of strength in numbers. The bottom line is that CAIR is media savvy, but not a grassroots organization. They are a top down operation.

The problem in America is getting people to face the truth, and act on it.

The U.S. Government sends conflicting information. They label terrorist organizations as such, but then invite CAIR leaders to the White House under the banners of diversity and multiculturalism. The media ignores CAIR entirely. The JBT reporter that wrote the initial erroneous story about CAIR was offered to view the evidentiary documents, but refused. He was “uninterested in a civil issue.” The Washington Post was uninterested in the story.

Media diversity guidelines require referring to Muslim harassment victims in the same vein and proportion as purveyors of overt terrorist attacks that are Muslim. Terrorists are to be compared similarly to white supremacists and anti-abortionists. In keeping with a left wing agenda, environmentalist terrorists such as ELF are exempt from this.

65% of Muslims in America are first generation, most of them having arrived since 1990. This is not foreign infiltration. Homegrown terrorists are living among the Muslims that love America and Western values. The bad have blended in with the good so that an attack on CAIR is an attack on all Muslims.

One organization helping this along is the North American Islamic Trust. This organization is a Saudi front that finances 45-70% of the mosques in America.

“The big problem is political correctness and multiculturalism. In short, we do not have to respect CAIR’s beliefs. The fact that they may have an educational wing that is not into terror is irrelevant. If the Klan wanted to work with people on a clean streets initiative, we would refuse their help because they are still the Klan. This is not about stifling their right to speak. It is about preventing them from stifling the right of others to have free speech and criticize them.” They will use the power of American courts to sue people, hoping that once enough people roll over and surrender, CAIR will gain more power.

“They cannot win, but we can lose. We must demand accountability. We must hear Muslim voices for freedom. We must speak the truth.”

One questioner asked about the Michael Savage case, but Mr. Rubenstein differentiated the cases. Mr. Savage made comments about CAIR, CAIR pressured his advertisers, and the advertisers caved in. From a moral standpoint this is what we must try and prevent, but Mr. Savage’s suit against CAIR was tossed out because advertisers have a legal right to be cowards. Another questioner asked about the Mark Steyn case, but that was more a human rights case.

“The burden is on Moderate Muslims to find us, not the reverse. We must stop the Western guilt. Immigrants today, like all immigrants in decades past, must leave their baggage in the old country.”

“The Muslim per capita income is greater than the average per capita income of other Americans.”

“Jews, especially liberal ones, are part of the problem. They want to keep quiet on this issue. They want no part of it for fear of a backlash.” So CAIR threatens to silence all Jews, and Jews respond by staying silent.

“The Klan, Communists, Nazis, and CAIR are all heinous but legal. The goal is not to get CAIR shut down, but to get the facts out.”

“It is tough to shut down people who support terrorists because it is tough to define the word support. It is illegal to support terrorists financially, but not emotionally.”

Mr Rubenstein offered some final thoughts.

“CAIR is the Sopranos equivalent of the Bada Bing Club.”

“The Patriot Act without a doubt has saved American lives.”

“There is a media war, but only one side is fighting.”

Mr. Rubenstein’s presentation is sobering and disturbing, but less sobering and disturbing than the fact that many people will either remain ignorant of the facts, in some cases through willful blindness.

CAIR does not represent all Muslims. All Muslims are not terrorists.

CAIR are terrorists. For those who offer excuses…I just don’t CAIR.

eric

President Bush mentioned in a previous State of the Union address that America is “addicted to oil.” At the Republican Jewish Coalition Winter meeting in Las Vegas, an energy panel featuring Cliff May, Dr. Gal Luft, Dr. Robert Zubrin, and Steven Hantler, dealt with the serious threat of America’s addiction to oil.

Cliff May can be found at

http://www.defenddemocracies.org/

Dr. Gal Luft can be found at

www.iags.org

Dr. Robert Zubrin can be found at

www.energyvictory.net/

Steven Hantler can be found at

http://www.setamericafree.org/

These men went out of their way to emphasize that this was not a republican or democrat issue. It was a keeping America alive issue.

Below are comments from the panelists.

“U.S. energy policy is a threat to U.S. security.”

“As oil consumption drives up prices, revolts by the masses will lead to hostile governments.”

“Those words (the above comments) were written in 1952 to President Dwight Eisenhower.”

“The Saudis have spent more on terrorism…half a trillion dollars…than Russia and China spent on Communism.”

“Robert Zubrin has a $20 book for sale, but $15 if he signs it.”

“Energy security is the issue for Jewish conservatives.”

“Our main exposure is in the transportation sector.Wind power is not going to fix this.”

“Fuel cells are not going to be the answer.”

“We have airbags for national security, and we need flexible fuel cars for national security.”

“At this rate the Muslim world will dominate the world economy. This is a giant wealth transfer.”

“Only the United States and Holland backed Israel over oil in the 1970s.”

“Saudi Arabia has a 27 trillion dollar market capitalization. OPEC has a 92 trillion market cap. The world’s top stock markets have a combined 51 trillion market cap. OPEC can buy General Motors in three days. They can buy 20% of every S & P 500 company in three years.”

“They are infiltrating Universities, and buying up Las Vegas despite the ban on gambling. Their new goal is to specifically buy stock in global media conglomerates.”

“The new form of investing is Sharia-compliant investment.”

“25% of oil is not in Muslim hands. This non-Muslim oil is running out twice as fast as the 75% controlled by Muslims.”

“95% of the people are under the control of five Middle Eastern nations.”

“17 years is the average life of a U.S. car. Having a car that only runs on gasoline locks the owner of the car into oil for 17 years.”

“Oil is still the one way to power vehicles.  Ships are now powered by petroleum, not coal.”

“In 1999, oil was $11 per barrel. In 2001 it was $22. In 2005 it was $50. Now it is $100. Armageddonijad (sic) wants $200 per barrel of oil. This is one trillion dollars in revenue, vs four billion in 1972.”

“Flexible fuel cars that run on ethanol, methanol, or any other alcohol, cost only an extra $100 per car to manufacture.”

“Flexible fuel cars are 100% of the market in Brazil, but only 3% of the market in the United States. One reason more people do not buy them is because there are few places to fill them up. Gas station owners will not switch from gasoline when there is much less money to be made.”

At this point I clearly saw the circular problem, but the solution was a bomshell, especially to a conservative republican audience.

“The only answer is a Congressional mandate. A mandate to produce flexible fuel cars must be enacted immediately. It is a national security issue.”

“An excellent source to replace gasoline is from crop residues. Crop residues could replace OPEC.”

“We should sell tractors to Africa instead of selling CNN to Saudi Princes.”

“With a Congressional mandate, farmers get more business, which would allow us to lower tariffs on Brazilian vehicles powered by Ethanol.”

“The current rise in oil prices is genocidal.  The average person in Kenya makes $1000 per year, compared to $40,000 in the U.S.”

“Unlike ethanol, methanol can be made from every biomass.”

The discussion then turned to who is blocking mandates.

“The oil industry is not the problem. They are in dire straits. Yes, they are making money now, but they are scared. They are also at the mercy of OPEC and Muslim nations.”

“The auto industry is not the problem. They are fine spending an extra $100 to build flexible fuel cars. The Big 3 favor this.”

“The problem are the Muslim Governments.”

“Another problem are the environmentalists. Environmentalism is the second fastest growing religion after Islam. Both are green. They are the problem.”

The panel made it clear that it was not the ends of the environmentalists that they disagreed with, but the means. Breaking the oil addiction could unite environmental liberals and national security conservatives if done right.

“The solution to global warming is to promote growth in agriculture, not suppress growth. Al Gore is spending 200 million dollars to promote his view, and conservatives are spending zero. We need to promote ‘Freedom Fuel.'”

I then asked a question, and was pleasantly surprised at how effective this panel was at addressing my concern.

“I appreciate your excellent presentation in preaching to the converted, but I am concerned about how you can sell this to the American people. When I hear about Congressional mandates, I picture big government liberalism such as ‘Hillarycare.’ How can Congressional mandates be packaged as a conservative republican idea that does not violate free market principles?”

Again, this panel was much wiser than me.

“Milton Friedman wrote that strong government action was necessary to break up monopolies. Oil is a foreign government monopoly. Breaking monopolies enhances choice. Hillary wants to tax oil companies and their profits. That is liberal. The conservative answer cannot be to do nothing. Inaction is an inferior solution to what Hillary proposes. A conservative solution is better. Government should intervene to create, not stifle, competition. During the Cold War, the U.S. Government mandated FM Radio. It was seen as a national security issue. The public needed to be informed in case of a nuclear attack. The precedent is there.”

The panel offered some final thoughts.

“There is no bill yet, but it can be called a ‘standard,” to get around the fear of the word ‘mandate.'”

“This is a national security issue that Hollywood can get behind.”

“Picture Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston driving flexible fuel cars under the commercial headline, ‘On this, we agree.'”

“It is documented that methanol, ethanol and alcohol are cheaper than gasoline by a 10:1 ratio. Ethanol is competitive with oil at $40 per barrel, but much less so with oil at $100.”

One thing the panel kept emphasizing is that national security requires that good ideas be accepted wherever they come from. The fact that the oil issue may have big business, environmentalists, national security hawks, farmers, and free traders on the same side does not automatically mean that proposed solutions are bad ideas.

I plan to learn as much as I can about flexible fuel cars. As much as I dislike mandates, I dislike America supplying blood money to our enemies more.

We must break our oil addiction. Our lives depend on it.

eric

Yes, today will be one of those days where the Tygrrrr Express (e)mails it in. The Chicago Cannonball and I will be sleeping in, and every minute spent on politics is a moment her undies stay on. Given my limited time with her, this cannot occur.

So today’s column is about my visits to the Daily Kos.

First of all, I will be the first to admit that there are people on that website that are not raving lunatics with rabid foam frothing from their mouths. However, enough of them are to provide entertainment. I have been very polite, and some of them responded with equal civility. However, some of them were, to quote football Coach Dennis Green in one of his legendary press conferences, exactly “what we thought they were.” Below are their comments with my responses. The code “LL” stands for “liberal lunatic.” The code “RR” stands for me, a “reasonable republican.”

LL: but I won’t break bread with today’s Republicans, including you. My country….the United States of America….the country I love….tortures people! My country makes people disappear. My country invades other nations. My country openly scorns the Geneva Convention, international law and its own sacred constitution. My country is feared, but no longer respected. And you did this. Whether out of fear, greed or ignorance, you and every other supporter of this administration have taken my country from me. You have p*ssed on what once was the greatest hope for humanity, and it will take a generation to recover. So no, no bygones. You are the enemy of my country and you must be defeated if it is to survive. I will have nothing to do with anyone who helped put this failed cabal in power. I no longer speak to 2 relatives.

RR: That is sad. My girlfriend is a democrat and the sex is phenomenal.

LL: Oh yeah. Blarp and Shoo before you are roundly ridiculed. So far we’re humoring you with a modicum of civility but our patience has limits.

RR: The least civil among you will prove me right, simply that you are incapable of being civil. I have been a gentleman, and appreciate those who are as well. Maybe if your side spent more time on ideas and less on hatred, you would govern more. 7 out of 10 Presidential elections and all.

LL: truly a stomach-churning cornicopia of falsehoods you’ve sent me off to bed sad for our country, eric. i will pray that somehow, someday you will educate yourself.

RR: You disagree with me, so I churn your stomach. My girlfriend disagrees with me, and she just rubs mine. Shrug…

LL: I disagree with you. I disagree with you. I disagree with you. I don’t care about fast food or talk show hosts. I do not see neo-cons as the noble opposition, on that you are correct. Most old school conservatives that I know ( an living in the south I know plenty) disavowed themselves of this administration quite some time ago. Was there supposed to be a teaching moment in this diary?

RR: Apparently not for you. I cannot reach everyone. I can reach some, and that is enough.

LL: F*ck you pr*ck, have a nice day

At least he wants me to have a nice day. That is sweet.

RR: Thank you so much. My blog appreciates you. If you represent all liberals, my research is going well.

LL: Count me as infantile, then. Bush and his cronies are murderers and warmongers, and I’ve said it to their… well, to the chain link fence around the “free speech” zone.

RR: What ban on free speech? Your keyboard works fine. The people claiming censorship are screaming it at the top of their lungs, the same way violent outbursts are often found at peace rallies. Nothing you say affects Dubya. He is rich and happy. He is uninterested in restricting your speech. I personally want the left to speak loudly, because it helps the right win. It goes both ways. Had we banned Pat Buchanan from the convention in 1992, Bush Sr. might have won again.

LL: In case your head hasn’t exploded yet, I oppose the war AND I respect the faithful service of our troops.

In all fairness, the above guy was not nuts. Yet my response was brilliant, so I included him.

RR: If you support the troops, then talk to them and listen to them. I travel a lot on business to places they are located (San Diego, Hawaii, etc) and the overwhelming number want to stay and get the job done. I ask them their honest opinions, and I listen. If you support them, you have to support them when they disagree with you. If they tell me they hate the mission, I will respect that. Yes, they can speak freely to me. They are not shy about it.

LL: It’s not Coke vs Pepsi or Leno vs Letterman. It’s Torture vs Human Rights. It’s Health Care vs. Coughing Up Blood and Dying of a Treatable Condition. It’s Protecting and Rebuilding New Orleans vs. Letting People Drown Because They’re Poor, Black and Democratic. It’s Responsible Action on Climate Change vs. A Whole Lot More Katrinas. It’s International Law vs. Invading Any Damn Country we Feel Like. We can’t have “discussions” about whether you ought to have a knife in my ribs, then politely turn to other subjects. Maybe back when Conservative didn’t mean Criminal, such civility was possible. Now, it’s a battle for survival. I don’t have to end your existence, but I MUST end your ability to impact my life in such destructive ways. And my disabled sister’s life. And my gay son’s life. And thousands of soldiers’ lives. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. And all the other lives whose destruction you think should be polite dinner table conversation. I will take only legal and peaceful means to do so, because to do otherwise would destroy what I’m fighting to save. But don’t expect me to be polite about it.

RR: Everything you say obviously comes from the heart. However, how do you know when an “enemy” can become an ally? Ted Kennedy credits Orrin Hatch with saving his life from drinking. Bill Frist literally saved a person having a heart attack in Dianne Feinstein’s office. Every day politicians cross the aisle to get things done. It is like how players on the Yankees and Red Sox change teams. The fans are angrier than the players. My girlfriend is closer to your views than mine, but we still care about each other.

LL: you are in fact, a bad person by any reasonable definition of the word “bad”. You are part of a political movement whose sole purpose is to make it possible to exploit human beings for profit, with your people getting the profits and the rest of us taxpayers bearing the costs of the human wreckage left behind in the wake of the corporate Richistani. You are part of a political movement who does not extend tolerance, does not deserve it, and isn’t going to get it. Go home. You have no place here.

RR: Thank you. My blog thanks you. If every liberal is like you, and speaks up, conservatives will win from now on. Way to reach out to a total stranger!

LL: this is sh*t. You need to go back home. Abraham Lincoln would vote for Obama. see my bio

RR: Thank You! Your graciousness and class are appreciated. Humorless Liberals 1, openminded people 0.

Don’t you just want to give these warm fuzzy Kossacks a bug hug? I want to hug them, cuddle them, and name them George.

Ok, enough hugs and smoochies from the Daily Kossacks.

I am a political conservative who believes in a liberal dose of sex.

Off to spend time with the Chicago Cannonball.

eric