Archive for April, 2010

Charlie Crist, Marco Rubio, and the Florida Senate Race

Friday, April 30th, 2010

Florida Governor Charlie Crist has decided to withdraw from the Republican senate primary and run for the senate as an independent.

(One question…Why would any governor want to downgrade to being a senator? Governors actually do things. One day I want to know why Crist chose a brutal senate race over a popular governorship, but that is for another time.)

As a New Yorker living in Los Angeles (I have been in LA for 20 years, would never live in NY again, and yet still refer to myself this way), I do not have an emotional stake in a Florida political race. Yet the decision Charlie Crist made is worthy of some analysis.

The first aspect of this story is the media itself. The disgusting biased slobs that hate Republicans because…well, just because…will decide that this is proof that the “extreme right” has hijacked the Republican Party. Crist will be praised for making a “principled” decision.

Ironically enough, Joseph Lieberman did not get treated with the same respect when Ned Lamont “hijacked” the Democratic Party. The double standard is disgusting.

There was nothing principled about the decisions made by Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, or Joseph Lieberman. They acted for the sake of political survival. This is not illegal or even immoral, but it is not worthy of praise either. Politics is a business, and Crist made a business decision. He was going to lose in the primary, so he bailed.

As expected, Crist stated that his move to running as an independent said “more about the state of politics and the parties today then it does about me.” This is as phony as when Bill Bradley retired by saying that “politics is broken.” They were going to lose, so they bailed to avoid embarrassment. Most politicians who quit do so because they are about to be fired. Just ask Chris Dodd.

(Sarah Palin and Evan Bayh both get a pass on this one. They were popular in their own states and would have most likely won reelection. Palin benefited from a huge GOP registration advantage while Bayh may have struggled against Dan Coats. Yet Bayh was still liked and formidable.)

I have zero objection to Crist running as an independent. He can run on the Blue Smurf ticket if he likes. If the voters support him, he deserves to win. I respect democracy.

I have met Charlie Crist. I found him very likable personally. He was friendly, intelligent, and just an all around good guy.

(I had his office in stitches when I called up to ask for clemency regarding a speeding ticket. I was concerned that Crist ran on a tough on crime platform. His highly amused assistant informed me that while the governor was proud of his record on crime, he had not resorted to giving out the death penalty for speeding tickets. It was not a capital case, and clemency was denied. I still maintain that the sign said “95.” The Highway patrolman explained that 95 was the highway, not the speed limit.)

As for how good a governor he has been, I have heard two different versions.

(My conversations have been with Republicans. I have zero interest in what the left thinks of him. They don’t seek my opinion for their politicians, nor should they).

The first narrative of Crist is that he has been a successful governor because he is smart, likable, and easy to work with. He is not a bombthrower. He is a good guy doing a good job.

The second narrative is that Crist got lucky in the tradition of George Herbert Walker Bush. Crist followed Jeb Bush, inherited a fabulous situation, and failed to screw it up. He was Jeb’s 3rd term, only more moderate.

The nearly universal consensus among Republicans is that Jeb Bush did virtually everything right, and that if he had any other last name he would be a top tier presidential contender. Even many supporters of Bush the elder and George W. Bush consider Jeb the best of the bunch.

So how did Crist go from being a popular governor to the brink of losing the senate primary?

Marco Rubio came along.

I have never met Marco Rubio, but he has electrified crowds.

(One concern…if he does win the senate seat, I do not want a single article about him running for president in 2012. Don’t put the guy in the half of fame before he plays a single game.)

Crist tried to coast on his likable nature, but being competent and affable is often not as powerful as a person who can light up crowds like Rubio can.

This does not make Rubio a demagogue. A man can be a powerful speaker and still have substance.

I would have stayed out of the Florida primary, because I believe in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment.

Yet with Crist dropping out and running as an independent, I would support Rubio because he is the GOP nominee. If Crist wins, I would hope he would caucus with the Republicans.

My worry is that Rubio and Crist beat each other up for another six months, and a Democrat gets elected. I do not want a replay of the special election in New York’s 23rd district that conservatives did a fabulous job of screwing up.

I am about winning. If Rubio wins, he was right to run. If he loses, then he should have stayed home and left Crist alone. The same goes for Crist.

I think Crist and Rubio are both good guys, and I wish Crist would have stayed in the Republican primary. The idea that these two men will bloody each other up right into the general election is a terrible scenario for Republicans.

Either Mr. Rubio or Mr. Crist would make for a good senator, but as of today I look forward to Marco Rubio being the next senator from Florida.


A Rabbinical Concern About Barack Obama

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

I have outsourced my column today. Baltimore Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg offers a heartfelt explanation of why he did not vote for Barack Obama, and why he now believes he made the right decision. He is only one opinion, but a healthy dissent from the cacophany of sycophants. He also expresses himself with more eloquence than I could muster.

“I must begin by telling you that I was uncomfortable writing this sermon. I wondered whether it was too harsh or not harsh enough. I asked myself if I should be delivering it or if I should have delivered it two years ago. So I’ll leave it to you to decide.
This week Israel celebrates the 62nd anniversary of its rebirth … the greatest event in modern Jewish history. You know by now how much Israel means to me. From my perspective, an Israel comes along once every 2000 years so it is to be cherished, protected and loved. In two weeks I will make my annual visit to that beautiful country, taking along my entire family, which means that for my oldest granddaughter — who is 7 years old — this will be her fourth visit but for my youngest granddaughter it will be her first. We are all excited for her! Israel is at the very heart of my family’s existence.
It was with this feeling uppermost in my mind that I chose not to vote for Barack Obama for President. Although I felt he offered a measure of hope for our country, and although I felt the election of a black man as President of the United States would be one of the most positive and remarkable events to take place during my lifetime, and although I agreed with many parts of his domestic policies … it was his foreign policy views that concerned me and proved decisive. I have a much more hawkish view than he does on foreign policy. I have always considered myself what is called a ‘Jackson Democrat’ and I was genuinely concerned about Obama’s perspective on Israel. My feeling was based on something he had said and something he didn’t say.
What he said was said in February of 2008 in a meeting with a hundred Cleveland Jewish leaders. Here are his words: “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says: unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, that you are anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress … because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation.”
What he said was not so terrible and I have to tell you that I respected him for having said it. He was very honest about his feelings. What he was basically saying was that he does not agree with the policies of a Likud government and that American Jews should be more prepared to debate those policies. Now, Mr. Obama is entitled to his opinion. It is just not my opinion! Does that make him an anti-Semite? Absolutely not! We have got to stop that kind of foolish talk. There are many Israeli Jews who agree with what he said … there are many American Jews who agree with what he said! But I’m not one of them! And knowing that after years of Hezbollah and Hamas and suicide bombings and kidnappings and rocket attacks, a majority of Israeli voters don’t agree with his perspective, it seemed obvious to me that if he were elected President, there would be a clash between his policies and Israel’s policies. Sad to say, I was right.
But as events have unfolded, even sadder to say unfortunately I think I was right in my concern about what Mr. Obama had not said. For 20 years he went to a church whose minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, spoke in terms that were both critical of America and of Israel. And Mr. Obama had never raised his voice in protest. He not only should have, he could have! Let me tell you about a man who, in similar circumstances, did! His name is Abraham Foxman, and he is the head of the Anti-Defamation League. Mr. Foxman was a member of a prominent synagogue in Teaneck, New Jersey but he found himself in a similar position. And he left his synagogue.
In his words, ‘I tried to have my rabbi change his views. I went to fellow congregants to see if they could have an impact on him. Only at a point in time where that didn’t happen I resigned.’ And he went on to say, ‘It was a wrenching decision, this was a synagogue where my son was Bar Mitzvahed, this was a synagogue where every happy event and every sad event I celebrated … this was my religious home.’ But he got up and left!
And when Rev. Wright’s words came out into the open, I asked myself: why didn’t Mr. Obama do the same? And it wasn’t just a matter of Rev. Wright’s words and it wasn’t just a matter of Mr. Obama’s close relationship with him … it was a matter of the whole church being enveloped with a ‘liberation theology’ with it’s Bulletin reprinting pro-Hamas articles. Wouldn’t all this have had an effect on Mr. Obama’s thinking? I asked myself.
James Tisch, the Manhattan billionaire and Chief Executive of Loews Corp. and long time activist in Jewish causes and philanthropies, thinks it did! In light of everything that has now been unfolding, Mr. Tisch recently said, ‘I think the President comes to this from Jeremiah Wright’s church and there is no doubt in my mind that in Jeremiah Wright’s church the Palestinians were portrayed as freedom fighters and not as terrorists.’ In light of Mr. Obama finding the time to visit Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, but not Israel … in light of his refusing to take a picture with Prime Minister Netanyahu after their recent meeting … in light of so much emphasis being placed on the settlements … in light of the recent resurrection of Zbignew Brezinski … in light of new talk about an imposed settlement … in light of all this and more, I have to agree with Mr. Tisch.
I don’t like what is happening, but that, in and of itself, is nothing new. There have always been conflicts between the United States and Israel. In 1956 the Eisenhower administration forced Israel to withdraw from captured territories despite Egypt’s belligerency. In 1967 President Johnson warned Israel not to go to war and became the first American administration to condemn Israel’s settlement activities. The Nixon administration tried to impose the Rogers Plan, forcing Israel back to the 1949 Armistice lines. Jimmy Carter … well, Jimmy Carter was, is and will always be Jimmy Carter. Ronald Regan was a friend but he was a friend who withheld weapons from Israel in punishment for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor. I could go on and on … there have always been conflicts; there have always been disagreements.
And one has to expect that! America is a global superpower … Israel is a country of seven million people. America’s view is of the woods and Israel’s is just one of the trees! So, disagreements are to be expected amongst friends. But the disagreements that are now taking place between America and Israel are different than the disagreements in the past. They are different on two levels.
First, for the first time that I can think of, Israel is being accused of being the one that is the hindrance to peace. That’s never happened before! Despite all the disagreements between Israel and the United States, it was always understood that after all is said and done, it is the Arabs and Palestinians who have resisted making peace. The Ford and the first Bush administration refused to negotiate with the PLO. Bill Clinton clearly stated that it was the Palestinians fault that Camp David fell apart. Bush the Second refused to even talk to Yassir Arafat, saying he was an impediment to peace. Now? Now Mr. Obama goes to Cairo and says the first step toward making peace possible is freezing the Israeli settlements. He asks nothing tangible from the Palestinians. The Palestinians refuse to even negotiate, but its Israel’s fault! And then when the clash erupts over the Jerusalem housing, Secretary of State Clinton and the others insist that Israel has to do certain things to show it is committed to making peace. Mr. Obama calls on Israel to take ‘bold steps’ for peace but again, nothing tangible is asked from the Palestinians! Israel should show that it is committed to making peace? Israel should take ‘bold steps?’

What was Camp David, which the Palestinians rejected? What was the Gaza withdrawal, which the Palestinians responded to with rocket attacks? What were the Olmert concessions to Abbas, which only led to the Palestinians refusing to negotiate? What was Mr. Netanyahu’s accepting a two-state solution and a partial freeze of settlements? And what was the removal of most of the check-points in the West Bank? And what were the ‘bold steps’ the Palestinians took besides refusing to even indirectly negotiate, refusing to compromise on the right of return, refusing to accept a demilitarized state, refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state, refusing to recognize any Jewish historic claims to Jerusalem … All they really seem to have agreed to do is to name more of their streets and squares after terrorists and suicide bombers. And Israel should show that it is committed to peace? Sen. John Kerry goes to Damascus and proclaims that Syria is committed to the peace process. Really? But with Israel there’s a question?
I don’t like what’s happening. This has never happened before! And to make matters worse, Israel is not only now being blamed for hindering peace with the Palestinians, talk has started to boil to the surface that Israel is to be blamed for the death of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a libel … this is a blood libel! We’ve heard these accusations before, but they always came from the extreme fringes; from the Pat Buchanans and others of his ilk. Now the talk is becoming more mainstream. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, was quoted as saying that Israel’s stubbornness makes the U.S. appear impotent. In a statement later denied, Vice President Biden was quoted as telling Prime Minister Netanyahu, ‘What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.’ U.S. Central Command General David Petraeus sends a statement to the Pentagon with a stark warning: ‘America’s relationship with Israel is important but not as important as the lives of American soldiers.’
A member of the administration is quoted as accusing Dennis Ross of having a dual loyalty. And we’re told that it’s all ‘misunderstood’ or ‘misquoted’ … it ‘doesn’t mean anything.’ Well, I could read you quotes from the Palestinian Chronicle and from the Jordan Times and from the Middle East Online, Beirut’s Daily Star and many other pro-Palestinian papers that have taken these words very seriously and are emboldened by them.
In fact, I don’t have to quote from Arab sources, let me just read you the headline of a recent editorial in USA Today: ‘Our view on the Middle East: Israeli Settlement Push Hurts U.S. Interests, Peace Process’ … with the editorial including these frightening words: ‘ … if Americans whose own family member’s lives are at risk every day in Iraq and Afghanistan come to believe that Israel’s action needlessly increase that risk, support would be jeopardized.’ Those words are true, you know. You know why our country has supported Israel these last 62 years? It’s not because of Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives; it is because of the American people. Every survey shows an overwhelming majority of American people supporting Israel, even during oil embargos, and that support is there because there is something about the American people that are able to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad, terrorists from innocent civilians and democracy from tyranny. The only thing that could change the feelings of Americans would be if our country’s service men and women were dying because of Israel. And a mood is emanating from Washington that could lead people to believe just that! What else is one to make of Mr. Obama’s statement this week that the Middle East conflict was ‘costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.’ What a horrible thing to say! The truth is, the Middle East conflict is affecting the blood and treasure of Israeli boys — not Americans. No American blood has been shed for Israel but plenty of Jewish blood has been! A real friend would not say this is Israel’s fault.
I know that some of my words are going to bother some of you, but please understand if I didn’t say them it would bother me even more! The fact of the matter is, this administration has from day one made improved relations with the Muslim world a primary goal, going as far as to ban the use of words like ‘Jihad’ and ‘Islamic terrorism.’ It is unfortunate that to date, America’s outreach of a friendly hand has not been reciprocated, which leads some to blame it all on Israel. If Israel would only give up what it is entitled to, the women of Al Qaeda would take off their burqas and join the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Taliban would sing Hava Negilah around the campfire, Hezbollah and Hamas would join Hadassah and the Shiites and Sunis in the Middle East would say: after 1400 years of killing each other, let’s co-sponsor a Kiddush at Beth Tfiloh! It’s just little Israel that is standing in the way of all this!
Well, let me tell you: it has been pointed out that the Jews have always been in the way! Look in the Bible … every time Babylonia or Syria wanted to invade Egypt, little Judea was in the middle. The Jews developed a unique set of rituals and beliefs; they couldn’t offer sacrifices to the images of Roman emperors, they wouldn’t work on the Sabbath and so to the Greeks and the Romans, they stood in the way of world domination. And then came another religion whose followers proclaimed that it was the fulfillment of the one the Jews practiced, but the Jews refused to go along. And so our people were portrayed as being the devil who were to be eternally dammed. And then came Islam … Mohammed was eager to win over the Jews. After all, he was a monotheist … why couldn’t the Jews go along? And if they had, Mohammed would have a solid base from which to operate. But the Jews refused to go along. And so we were portrayed as being monkeys. In modern Europe, the Jews were in the way of middle-class Frenchmen and Germans who were seeking their jobs. The Communists found them in the way because Jews didn’t fit into simple class categories. Eventually, Hitler came along and decided to once and for all eliminate this universal inconvenience. It didn’t happen then and it’s not going to happen now!
Meir Dagan is the head of Israel’s Mossad. Under his directorship the Mossad, in recent years, has rebuilt its reputation for lethal and successful operations. What motivates Mr. Dagan may become obvious to a visitor to his office in Tel Aviv, where on the wall there is a picture of an old Jew standing on the edge of a trench … an SS officer is aiming his rifle at the old man’s head. ‘This old Jew was my grandfather,’ Dagan tells visitors. The picture reflects his philosophy for Israel’s survival. In his words, ‘We should be strong, use our brain and defend ourselves so that the Holocaust will never be repeated.’
I don’t fear that the Holocaust will be repeated. This is not 1938 all over again. But in some ways, it is 1948 all over again, when there were leaders in the upper most echelons of the American government including the Secretary of State, who urged the President not to recognize Israel, saying that such recognition would stand in the way of Arab friendship with our country. President Truman didn’t listen to them. Instead, he listened to the words of his advisor, Clark Clifford, who told him, ‘In an area as unstable as the Middle East, where there is not now and never has been any tradition of democratic government, it is important for the long range security of our country — and indeed the world — that a nation committed to the democratic system be established there; one on which we can rely. The new Jewish state can be such a place.’ That’s just what the new Jewish state has been for the past 62 years.
Sure, not every Israeli soldier acts like a saint, and not every Israeli policy is an act of genius. There is certainly room for criticism but that should not blind anyone to the fact that despite all the provocations and incitements, despite Palestinians using their children as human shields and their wives as suicide bombers, despite acts of barbarism and terrorism … despite all this there is no country on earth more desirous of peace, more willing to compromise for peace than the people of Israel. And this too I know: that as American Jews we should take Meir Dagan’s words to heart: ‘We should be strong and use our brains …’ And one thing more. We dare not despair. We dare not lose hope.
Barack Obama entitled his book ‘The Audacity of Hope’ — a title he got from Rev. Wright. The truth of the matter is the history of the Jewish people could be entitled, ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ as expressed in Israel’s national anthem, the Hatikvah, meaning ‘the hope.’
Its author, Naphtali Herz Imber, once said, ‘Kings, Earls, Cardinals will all pass away … but I and Hatikvah will remain forever.’
He was right! The hope remains forever … to be a free people in our land, in the land of Zion and Jerusalem.”

I cannot add anything except a solemn and sobering “amen.”


Ideological Bigotry Part XXVI–Debbie Does Dennys and Eminem Returns

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

I have said on many occasions that the left hates the right solely because we on the right exist and breathe air.

The downright hostility emanating from leftist ideological bigots makes it impossible for conservatives to walk down the street without being harassed.

Conservatives have their cars keyed, their lawn signs stolen, and their lives turned upside down.

I have been verbally assaulted by hotel employees for daring to attend a function where a liberal congressman was speaking. I have had a five minute cab ride feel like a hostage situation. I have had women scream at me for feeling a certain way without asking me how I felt.

In the Jewish community, this ideological bigotry is especially noxious.

I have said on many occasions that if Osama Bin Laden were captured tomorrow, liberal Jewish women would ask his stance on abortion before determining if he was a bad guy. They would want to know if the car he drives to greet his suicide bomber employees is a hybrid. When he speaks about drinking the blood of dead Americans and Jews, they want to make sure it is in a biodegradable cup.

A Jewish function I recently attended ended up with several people going out to a local club later on.The club was within walking distance of my home. One of the people sitting at the table was a woman I will refer to as “Debbie.”

I have run into Debbie many times over the years. I did not know her well, but we engaged in casual conversation. I knew that she was in an on again, off again long distance relationship. At age 30-something, she was struggling financially. Her “career” was that of a nanny.

Six of us sat at the table, and the conversation was light, breezy, and harmless. Somebody asked what I did for a living.

I used to avoid answering the question because I was tired of being attacked. Republican Jews are the new gays. We are in the closet out of fear.

I decided to “come out” as a Jewish Republican and be proud of who I am. So when I am asked what I do, I say that I am a speaker. I tell them that some of my speaking is political. I also make it clear that I like everybody, and do not let that affect my friendships.

Yet too many people on the left do have political litmus tests for friendships. My constant obsession with ending ideological bigotry, especially in the Jewish community, has led me to be much less patient with people when they exhibit it.

Some have even argued that since ideological bigotry is not codified law like racial or ethnic bigotry, it is less important. After all, if it was serious, it would be leagally wrong. THis line of thinking is a pathetic rationalization.

At this dinner table, Debbie proudly claimed that she was a socialist. I had zero problem with that. However, she then offered up the usual tired litany of insults. “Republicans don’t care about people.” “I can’t stand Republicans.”

I pointed out that she shouldn’t label a whole group of people, especially since I was one.

She then made it clear that while I may personally not be bad, most of them are.

This is where I had a decision to make. I could let it go. Yet again, if this were racial or ethnic bigotry, I would be criticized for staying silent. The idea that anti-Republican bigotry should be tolerated is nonsense.

I unloaded on her. I am not proud of it,  but I did it. I called her a bigot. After all, liberals have been throwing around that word forever. A taste of their own medicine was in order, especially since this was an actual example of real bigotry, not the fictional stuff the left invents.

We aregued in front of the Denny’s and inside the Denny’s. It got pretty ugly.

I let her know the reason why she really hated Republicans. It was because I was successful while she had failed at life. She may have been working “hard,” but she was not working smart. I worked my behind off to be a success and I was not going to have a failed human being tell me I was a bad person because I did not want to redistribute my success to her pathetic failed existence.

She claimed to have been reduced to tears over this, but cry me a river of crocodile tears. While there are female Republicans and male Democrats, the parties to have a gender gap in the other direction. Women (especially liberals) love to put men (conservatives) on the defensive by calling us mean and insensitive. My response is that these women should just act like guys (with breasts) and grow a (figuratively) pair.

I am tired of the left throwing punches and then getting all hysterical when the right fires back.

She said she did not mean what she said, but that was not good enough. She did mean it. What I wanted from her was a promise not to say such things again. I mean why apologize to me and then go around and say the same bad things to other people? Even by liberal standards, that is phony.

She absolutely refused to make this promise, and stated that I had no right to limit her speech. Actually, like a typical leftist, she is unaware that plenty of speech is restricted, such as hate speech. She is just lucky that her hate speech is not codified yet.

That is when I decided to play hardball. The only thing liberal bullies respect is force. I let her know that I had a mailing list of 10,000+ people, and I was going to make her the next poster child for liberal bigotry gone wild. I was going to make her famous.

She threatened to sue me, as if she could afford a lawyer. Liberal lawyers who do pro bono work do not care about white Jewish liberal women who have a problem shutting up. Other groups are more sympathetic.

At this point I decided to consult with the Real Slim Shady. I asked myself, “What would rapper Eminem say in this situation?”

Hey, Eminem knows how to handle nasty women who try to criticize his success.

I referred to the song “Without me.” Eminem explained the emptiness of Debbie’s threat. That is when I decided to call her ridiculous bluff and accelerate my fury.

“Get ready…’cause this sh*t’s about to get heavy…I just settled all my lawsuits, f*ck you Debbie!”

Some may ask why I did not let this go. Why am I such a heat seeking missile? Why rip a woman to shreds?

Because I have had it.

I light myself on fire so that others do not have to do it. Others can continue being nice. It is a valuable public service.

The stress of it might kill me, and I really do abhor conflict. Yet until the other side is willing to treat me with decency, unilateral disarmament is not going to have.

Debbie made the wrong comments to the wrong guy, and she was unprepared for the rage directed at her. Well she should have been prepared. Again, change the word Republican to gay or black, and liberals understand my indignation.

So why not let others handle this? Again, philospher Eminem, has the answers.

“This looks like a job for me…so everybody else just follow me…cause we need a little controversy…it’ll feel so empty without me.”

I am really good at taking wretched human beings and ripping them to shreds. I wish I was not. Yet years of being on the receiving end of abuse have left me battle hardened. My hands are daggers and my words are stilettos.

I honestly wish somebody else would do it. Yet waiting for conservatives to stand up for themselves is pointless.

I wish I could just “let it go,” but I am not going to sit at a dinner table while somebody tells me I am evil, uncaring, stupid, or any other adjective when they know nothing about me.

I am not going to allow somebody who has failed at life to come at me for succeeding. It is not the system. It is the crybabies.

Debbie finally relented at 2am after about 3 hours of battering. She promised not to defame or defile me in any way. I promised not to use her last name when telling her story.

Besides, she is a leftist. It is not like she could do anything if I did.

In 10 years I might be dead from stress. Yet I can guarantee that if I am alive, I will be doing my best to try and succeed in life. She will still be complaining and blaming Republicans. What a pointless existence.

So while Debbie does Dennys, I reach for the snack bowl and enjoy free Eminems.

I did not seek this role. Yet until ideological bigotry is vanquished, I will be the reluctant conqueror of all things leftist and vicious until these miscreants are crying their eyes out and promising to be nicer people.

I did not start this conflict, but I sure will finish it.

So for those conservatives who have had enough, I am there for you. The Debbies of the world will crawl back to their leftist holes, under a fusillade of superior verbal firepower if necessary.

Get ready…

Cause this sh*t’s about to get heavy…

This looks like a job for me…

So everybody else just follow me…

We need a little controversy…

It’ll be so empty without me.

You’re welcome.


Rabbi Josh Grater–Liberalism vs Judaism

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

A column by Pasadena Rabbi Josh Grater in support of Obama has led me to offer a rebuttal.

First, some background is required. I refer to him throughout my column as “Josh” rather than Rabbi Grater. This is not in any way meant as disrespect. I went to college with him, so to me he is Josh.

Although I have not seen him in 20 years, we knew each other very well because it was such a small campus. We both liked sports, and 1980s rock music (We both had long hair, although his was much neater). He was going to be a Radio DJ and I was going to be in a band. Instead, he became a Rabbi and I a stockbroker. I don’t remember him ever being political in college.

I got along with him fine. We hung out in different circles, but there was no animus. Despite people making fun of the concept of Jewish athletes, Josh was probably the best basketball player on campus. He made the shots. In short, I liked the guy. His wife Franci, who he met on campus, was always nice to me. She was nice to everybody. I met Josh’s dad once. He was funny and engaging, and the 20 minute conversation was pleasant. So on a personal level, I have only positive experiences regarding Josh and those around him.

His politics are diametrically opposed to mine. Since he is a very respected Rabbi among the liberal Jewish community (I respect his accomplishment. He should be proud of this), I have to take apart the flaws in his recent column because I want to influence the Jewish community in the opposite direction.

Here is his entire article.

I will start out with some general comments that are completely unconnected to the article.

There is nothing in Judaism that mandates liberalism. God is not a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. God loves Sarah Palin and Barack Obama equally, and neither Josh nor I should substitute our judgment for the judgment of God (not saying Josh did). Liberals like to state that Jesus was not a Republican. Well Moses was not a Democrat.

Like many Jews, Josh is a passionate liberal. Yet his liberalism and his Judaism should be separate entities. My Judaism and conservatism are not fused together. Also, Josh has a difficult role. As a private citizen, he can and should advocate his beliefs. Yet as a Rabbi, his synagogue cannot shill for liberal policies (I have never attended his services, have zero evidence he has crossed the line…other Synagogues have). Churches should not shill for Republicans either, but a Catholic church preaching a pro-life message is sticking within religious doctrine. It is a tough balance, and if Josh had a Republican congregant who needed Rabbinical advice on marriage, divorce, or other religious issues, I trust Josh is decent enough to put aside his politics and help his congregant.

The article itself validates my belief that for liberal Jews, liberalism is their religion. He wants to make the case for Barack Obama to Jews from a Jewish Rabbinical perspective. The article would be honest if it was a liberal call to maintain support for him, or for all Americans to rally around him. However, the title says it all.

“Jews must stay on visionary Obama’s side.”

Yet the first few reasons he supports Barack Obama have nothing to do with Judaism.

“President Obama passed health care reform, possibly the greatest domestic policy achievement in a generation. He is standing up to the greed and self-interest of Wall Street. He supports a women’s right to choose and successfully appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. He is committed to ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He takes global climate change seriously.”

None of that has anything to do with being Jewish. Josh can claim that the Torah tells us to help the poor and the sick, be good stewards of the Earth, and strive for peace. He can claim that liberals should admire Obama for these reasons. He cannot say that Jews should support Obama for this.

This is very serious. The reason why Josh cannot and should not do this is because if Josh is right, then I am a bad Jew…or worse…not Jewish at all.

I am against Obamacare. I am against his unilaterally reducing America’s nuclear arsenal. I thought Sotomayor was a dreadful nominee. I am just as Jewish as Josh is.

If liberalism is Judaism, then Jews believing in political conservatism are either bad Jews, or not Jewish. My father is a Holocaust survivor and political conservative. Did he deserve his fate? Should he have been sent to the gas chambers?

Think about this very seriously. Bad people deserve bad things to happen to them. Good people deserve good things to happen to them. Yet who decides this? God and God alone. If liberalism is Judaism, then isn’t conservatism the anti-Judaism? If Judaism is good, does that not make conservatism evil?

Liberals may scoff at my argument, but this is how they think. This is why they despise conservatives such as Sarah Palin, who I will get to later.

Josh eventually does get to actual Judaism.

“And then there is Israel. President Obama has committed himself to the Jewish people by committing himself to working for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

So did George W. Bush. He called for a Palestinian state led by leaders who were not compromised by terror. Is it George W. Bush’s fault that Yassir Arafat was a terrorist with blood on his hands? Is it George W. Bush’s fault that the Palestinians elected Hamas? Is it George W. Bush’s fault that 80% of Palestinians support suicide bombings?

“However, since all parties to the conflict agree that there is no military solution…”

This is totally untrue. The Palestinians have never rejected the military solution. They have never done what the Irish Republican Army did in the name of peace. They have never laid down their arms. Hamas is now the Palestinian leadership. Their charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. That sounds like a military solution to me.

“President Obama, a statesman capable of understanding nuance and complexity…”

This is the obligatory cheap shot at George W. Bush. The left will never admit that he was much more thoughtful and deliberative than they think because it would ruin their image of him as a war-mongering dolt. What the left calls nuance, the right often very fairly sees as dithering.

“American Jews overwhelmingly supported Obama in the 2008 election, and the majority continues to support him because his vision for our country — a vision of inclusion, strength through diplomacy, peace and providing for the neediest among us — resonates deeply with Jews.”

I understand that liberals see conservatives as people who want to starve the needy, shoot the homeless, bomb every country, and hurt every minority, but that does not make their vision remotely correct.

I want all people in society to do better. I believe that a hand up works better than a handout. I believe that liberalism has destroyed people through a destructive welfare system, bureaucracy that hurts small businesses, and a naive foreign policy that leaves American vulnerable.

My vision has the same ends, but different means. I am just as Jewish as Josh. My opposing Mr. Obama’s vision is rooted deeply in my values.

“There are voices who feel threatened by the accomplishments of the past half century in the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movement and the gay rights movement.”

This argument is pure bigotry. People are opposing Obama because they are racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes. The idea that conservatives dislike liberal policies for noble reasons is discounted.

Again…none of those issues have anything to do with Judaism. The Torah does not discuss global warming or abortion. Also, feminism is about equality. Until liberals can see a pro-life woman as a feminist, then feminism is nothing but a liberal political agenda.

Sarah Palin is a feminist. She is a working mother who successfully balanced running an entire state with raising a family. Her stance on abortion has zero to do with her feminist credentials. Liberals preach “inclusiveness,” “diversity,” and “tolerance,” but have zero tolerance for opposing views, zero interest in diversity of thought, and zero interest in including conservatives in the family of good human beings.

If feminism today means anything (it doesn’t), then a woman can be politically conservative and still be a feminist.

Either way, for the billionth time, this has nothing to do with Judaism.

Josh’s entire argument is one of liberalism, not Judaism. His argument to liberal Jews is simple. Jews are liberal, Obama is liberal, therefore Obama is good for the Jews.

That argument is fine politically, but fails miserably theologically.

Flip it around.

Christians are conservative, Palin is conservative, therefore Palin is good for Christians.

Maybe some Christians do not support her. Maybe some Jews do not support Obama. People can love their respective religions without being mindless automatons. Judaism is all about questioning things, yet when it comes to liberalism, Jews are expected to blindly follow a rigid liberal ideology without debate.

“Being U.S. president is more than ignoring those with whom you disagree and then attacking them if they do not capitulate.”

This is the epitome of the Obama presidency. He has never treated his political opponents with dignity. His supporters (including Josh in this article) tar his opponents as bigots, rather than acknowledge that we have opposing views that are just as noble. Conservatives were against the health care bill. We did not capitulate, and we were relentlessly attacked for it. The left wanted the bill rammed down our throats, and they got it.

Also, what does this have to do with Judaism?

“Being the president requires vision, courage, perseverance and respect for diversity.”

What about intellectual diversity? What about ideological diversity? What about diversity of thought?

(cue the chirping crickets)

Again, what does this have to do with Judaism?

The Jewish community knows that President Obama is this kind of leader, and we should continue to support him in his efforts to better our country and be a true friend to Israel.”

There you have it. Being pro-choice, pro-global warming, and pro-mediocrity provided quotas are filled is why we should support him.

Josh is a liberal. He desperately wants Barack Obama to be great for the Jews because Barack Obama is great for the liberals.

If I was a liberal, I would be delighted by Mr. Obama. I am a conservative, so I am far from delighted.

Yet at no time does Josh or any other liberal leader offer any rationale as to why Mr. Obama is good for the Jews specifically.

In fact, his arguments are very bad for the overall Jewish community because it pits people against each other and divides the Jewish community.

Orthodox Jews are against gay marriage. Under Josh’s criteria, they are not adhering to Jewish values. This is ironic, since if anybody is qualified to analyze the Torah, it is the Orthodox. They spend their entire lives reading the thing.

Josh even twists Jewish teachings to argue that Judaism supports liberalism.

“Ancient Jewish tradition in Pirke Avot, the Ethics of our Ancestors, teaches that ‘while we are not called upon to finish the job, we are certainly called upon to never cease from trying.’ For Jews, this applies to the task of building a nation that lives up to the ideals of both our Jewish sages and our American founders.”

Pirke Avos also teaches that justice must be blind, and that a court should not favor a poor man over a rich man. There are specific passages in Pirke Avos that argue against the very wealth redistribution that the left wants to implement.

Most importantly, the biggest mitzvah (good deed) in all of Judaism is Tzedakah (charity). There are eight levels of charity. The highest level is helping somebody go into business and become self sufficient. That is higher than giving somebody a handout. This is a very politically conservative message.

I am not advocating that Jews should be conservative Republicans. I am disputing the argument put forth by Josh that liberalism and Judaism are joined at the hip.

Josh made a powerful argument for liberals to fall in line behind a liberal President.

By attacking Palin and all conservatives in terms of history and motives, he has failed to live up to the inclusiveness argument that he claims embodies the left.

Until conservative Republican Jews can be welcome in any synagogue in the country, then the Jewish community has failed their brethren.

Since the majority of Jews are liberal, the blame resides with them.

Nothing in Judaism or the Torah supports or condemns Barack Obama.

Nothing he has done in any way remotely helps the Jewish people specifically.

Jews devoted primarily to Judaism understand this.

Liberals devoted primarily to liberalism insist on blurring the lines.

Josh argues that since Mr. Obama is a liberal, he has to be good for the Jews.

Republican Jews understand that he doesn’t, and he isn’t.


Defending South Park–Half Naked Picture of Muhammad and a Goat

Monday, April 26th, 2010

I have decided to show a picture of Muhammad today.

If the Tygrrrr Express burns and I get beheaded, I will be another casualty in the war of civilization vs. barbarism.

Muhammad was special at some time, but let’s be honest. Today this former warrior could not beat up most people. He is a shell of what he was.

I found a picture of him in all his violent rage. The picture also has him without a shirt on. Even better still is a reference to a goat. So yes, I have a picture of a half-naked Muhammad with a goat.

Here it is.

Deal with it George Clooney. The men who stare at goats is more than a bad movie nobody watched. It is now this image I published.

Some may say that I am not being offensive enough, but it is hard to show a picture of Muhammad when I have no idea what he looks like. If I did, I would post it.

While I am not an expert on this issue, I do know that he does not look like a bear. Therefore, since it is obvious that he is not a bear, the creators of South Park did not offend anybody.

Perhaps the same Radical Islamofascists may wish to stop calling Jews apes and pigs.

South Park attacks all religions, and they do it brilliantly.

One of the funniest episodes I had ever seen was when it was determined that the entire leader of Catholicism was a bunny rabbit. After all, the large, long hat the Pontiff wears fits perfectly over rabbit ears.

Catholic League President Bill Donohoe retaliated by murdering 3000 New Yorkers on 9/11.

Oh no wait…That was Mohammed Atta.

The Jews have been lampooned on South Park, with the holiday of Purim being mocked in brilliant fashion.

Yet when all is said and done, Matt Parker and Trey Stone are not attack religions. They are attacking people who abuse religion for nefarious purposes.

After the Purim episode, I remember the Lubavitche Rebbe strapping a suicide belt around his waist.

Oh no, I am confused again. That was another Mohammedan.

The Virgin Mary is covered in “fertilizer.” A cross is hung in a jar of something that looks like Apple cider but sure ain’t.

Christians protest. They try to cut off funding, at which point the ACLU and other brain dead liberals claim censorship.

Yet the left has no problem encouraging the censorship of Muslim cartoons. The left sees them in bad taste. They are culturally insensitive.

What the left really means is what they will never admit.

It is ok to make fun of Jews and Christians because Jew and Christians will not retaliate with genocidal rage.

There are plenty of peaceful Muslims. This is irrelevant. If 99.9% of them are peaceful, then one million of them are bloodthirsty savages.

Rather than try to kill these million, the left tries to give them respect.

It does not work.

Radical Islam is a cancer. It needs to be forcefully eradicated.

When Muslim cartoons showed Mohammed to be violent, what was the response from Radical Muslims?


The cartoons were…and are…right.

Islam has a violent strain. Judaism and Christianity do not come even close.

For now.

Radical Muslims need to understand that one of two things is going to happen.

Either Christians will surrender, as they did in Europistan, or they will fight back with equal if not greater brutality.

The Crusades Part II will be even more bloody.

I will not lose an ounce of sleep if this happens again. I don’t care if Radical Muslims are sodomized with baseball bats and then fed to the goats they use as spouses.

The 99.9% of sane Muslims will be better off. They want the Islamists gone.

I will not be part of the Caliphate. I don’t need to be sensitive or understanding. If liberals want to be tolerant, they can go live in these Arab Muslim nations. I am sure the ACLU Human Rights Department will beg for Christians and Jews as leaders once they are deported to live with the savage governments.

Until then, South Park needs to keep doing exactly what it is doing.

More versions of the Danish cartoons must be printed every day.

America is still a Republic. Democracy exists here. We will not crucify Christians an coddle Islamofascists.

Why do liberals do this?

Because they don’t fear Jews and Christians. Despite talk of Jewish and Christian extremism, the left knows all they will face is an angry letter.

Liberals fear Radical Islamists. By agreeing to self censorship, they have already surrendered.

Once again, don’t send a liberal to do an adult’s job.

I am a conservative, and a proud Neoconservative at that.

I will not back down.

Here is a Danish drawing.

Behold the roses of the prophet Mohammed.

Ok, enough fooling around. Here they are.

The next time an Islamist calls Jews apes or pigs, perhaps Israel should drop a nuclear weapon on their country and obliterate them all. After all, isn’t genocide the answer to those who insult the children of Abraham?

The next time the Pope is insulted, shouldn’t Christians go into random Muslim neighborhoods, round up the infidels, and shoot first and ask questions never?


The goal is to stop the bad guys, and only the bad guys.

Negotiation and dialogue does not work with Islamofascists. The only solution is force. Killing them does not breed more. Killing them leaves them dead.

I stand shoulder to shoulder with the creators of South Park. It is a conservative program, hence the liberal silence.

Then again, liberals could just be cowering under the bed in fear.

They would rather attack Republicans. How brave of them.

Radical Muslims who practice a b@stardized form of Mohammedanism need to be slaughtered like the apes and pigs they are.

Then Theo Van Gogh supporters can draw cartoons of the carnage.

I would happily publish those cartoons.


NFL 2010 Draft Recap

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

After several days of gorging on football, it is time to digest the 2010 NFL Draft.

This actually reminds me of a guy from Mississippi who told me, “I once passed a football. The toughest part was digesting it.”

On that lovely note, it is time to get down to the business of football.

The National Football League is king. Nothing else comes close. The NBA and NHL are in the middle of their playoffs. More sports fans would rather watch the Jim Mora pres conference where he keeps saying the word “Playoffs!”

Only the NFL could make an entire production out of the release of the schedule. The schedule! A program about who will play who in several months, and we are addicted.

Only the NFL could make a three-day extravaganza out of the Draft. The Draft! It was not exciting as a kid to see the kids choose up sides. As long as I was not the last kid picked, life was good. Yet in the NFL, Mr. Irrelevant gets a bonanza celebration in his honor for being picked last.

I love football. I loved what I saw from the 2010 NFL Draft. Now it is time for analysis, which will soon be proven wrong, in keeping with my tradition of speaking loudly and getting it wrong.

The Rams picked Sam Bradford. Whether or not their quarterback situation was beyond repair is debatable. Kyle Boller was traded to the Raiders, and Marc Bulger has been injury wracked. Bradford will put fans in the seats, and a raucous home crowd only helps.

Picking a quarterback as the first overall pick is a 50/50 proposition. For every Peyton Manning, there is a Ryan Leaf. As for Bradford, we shall see.

The Lions totally got it right with the second pick. It is hard to praise a team that followed the first 0-16 season with a 2-14 campaign. Yet picking defensive standout Ndamokong Suh was a no-brainer.

They picked quarterback Matthew Stafford, and the kid is a winner. Forget the 2-14 season. He was a warrior, and his win over Cleveland with hurt ribs and a broken arm was courageous as can be.

Teams that want to turn around need an offensive leader and a defensive leader. Think back to the Packers of the 1990s. In 1992 they got quarterback Brett Favre. Yet they also picked up Reggie White a year later. They had their two emotional leaders on both sides of the ball.

Check back on the Lions in 5 years. They have Stafford and Suh. They are no longer losers

As a guy who bleeds silver and black, the Raiders got it right enough with the # 8 pick. I was hoping they would get an offensive tackle, preferably Russell Okung. Actually, I really wanted them to trade down and get more picks, to use on at least one left tackle. Yet Okung was taken # 6 by Seattle. The Raiders have players at the skill positions. They need guys in the trenches on both sides of the ball. So picking up defensive lineman Rolando McClain was a solid pick.

Losing Kirk Morrison to Jacksonville was a shame, since Morrison led the team in tackles the last four years. McClain needs to play well to make losing Morrison worth it. Trading for Jason Campbell was not a move I would have made. I still believe Bruce Gradkowski should quarterback the team until JaMarcus Russell gets his act together. The Raiders only gave up a 4th round pick…in 2012…but doing business with Mike Shanahan is not something Al Davis should have considered. Shanahan hates Al Davis more than Al Qaeda, and unloading Campbell is another way of him seeking vengeance against his former team.

The quarterbacks were the story of this draft. After Sam Bradford, the other quarterbacks disappeared.

Jimmy Clausen was supposed to be a top 10 pick. He was supposed to be a superstar, but then again, any Notre Dame player touted by Beano Cook is suspect. Remember, ol’ Beano insisted Ron Pawlus would be the second coming of all Four Horsemen. Yet Clausen was downgraded because of his perceived “attitude.” That made people think of Ryan Leaf.

Clausen was eventually picked at #48 by the Carolina Panthers. They are an interesting team. First, the releasing of Jake Delhomme may come to haunt them. Some say he is washed up. I totally disagree. Yet after picking Clausen, the Panthers also picked up Pike later on. This was head scratching. Matt Moore has some competition, but the competition has competition.

Falling even further was Colt McCoy, who was finally picked by the Cleveland Browns with the #85 pick. When the Walrus, aka Mike Holmgren, came to Cleveland, he had to choose between Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn. In a stunning move, he got rid of both of them. Then Jake Delhomme was brought in. This has been a circus. Holmgren has always been a winner, so he gets some latitude.

Pete Carroll got the Seahawks some instant respectability with a solid pick at # 6 in Russell Okung. With all world left tackle Walter Jones expected to retire, Okung will have big shoes to fill. Carroll resisted the temptation to make a sexy pick and instead made the smart pick. Yes there was controversy when he picked a safety that was not his former USC safety, but this is a business.

For shock value, the Denver Broncos chose Tim Tebow. The Broncos gave the Ravens 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks. This was not the Herschel Walker or Ricky Williams trade, but there was a lot given up for Tebow. The Broncos gave up multiple picks and players for John Elway, and that worked out. Josh McDaniels is either a genius or a year from being fired.

The Dallas Cowboys are always interesting. Jerry Jones is forever haunted by passing up Randy Moss. So while the rest of the league has decided that character matters, Jones has decided that the purpose of owning a football team is to win football games. Dez Bryant is just another weapon for Tony Romo. Jones was almost prepared to fire Wade Phillips and the entire team, and they went 11-5 last year. This year it might be title or bust.

The New York Jets have put character aside. They have loaded up on talent, some of it troubled, to get over the hump. They believe they can win the Super Bowl this year, and Rex Ryan is tough enough to handle the egos. Santonio Holmes was bounced out of Pittsburgh only two years after winning a Super Bowl. Ryan wants him to help win another one. Mark Sanchez is only going to get better.

The Vikings made a smart move getting a running back to fill the void left by the departure of Chester Taylor. With this team, the only thing that matters is if Brett Favre returns.

Timmy Toone was Mr. Irrelevant, and his party in Newport Beach in June should be fun.

Only the NFL could have pick # 255 be as exciting as the top pick.

4 ½ months until kickoff…bring it on!


Why Tim Tebow Must Fail

Saturday, April 24th, 2010

Today at 1pm I am speaking at the California College Republican State Convention held at USC. Then I drive to San Diego for 5 events in 5 days. 4 chapters of the Republican Women’s Federated (Intermountain, Golden Triangle, Carlsbad, Delmar Seacoast) are preceded by a Saturday Night in Downtown San Diego as the opening act for Evan Sayet’s Right to Laugh series.

Yet this weekend is about the NFL Draft, and the big story is Tim Tebow.

I will say it now.

Tim Tebow must fail.

I know, I am a heartless b@stard. Deal with it.

I have been one of Tebow’s biggest defenders.

For one thing, he is a good kid. He is polite, obeys the law, and seems to be a good corporate citizen. He is the last person anyone would expect to be caught in strip clubs or secret dog fighting rings.

Yet so many people have wanted this kid to fail. One main reason for this is because he is a devout Christian.

While other kids are out getting involved in shootings, Tebow is in church. He claims to be practicing abstinence with his girlfriend, because he wants to wait until he gets married to have sex. How many star football quarterbacks would make that sacrifice? Not many.

Many people in America see all Christians as intolerant zealots. They call Christians intolerant while lashing out at these people in a most uncivilized manner. An entire faith gets blamed for a precious few bad apples that betray the faith.

Tim Tebow wears “John: 316” in black under his eyes. Yet a proud display of his faith is not the same as ramming his beliefs down everybody else’s throats.

Florida won back to back national championships with Tebow at the helm. His quest for a third straight championship went up in flames when Florida got belted by Alabama in the title bowl game. Alabama was the better team on that day, but Tebow was still a great college player.

Yet outside of Alabama, it was troubling seeing so many people gleeful at his failing. Many people wanted to see him humbled. The problem with this line of thought is that he already was humble. He told his teammates before every game that he did not want to let them down.

So he cried after the loss. So what? Football is an emotional game, and emotions make us human.

Some people do not like the fact that he seems too perfect. Good looks, success, happiness…people are envious. They want him to have a major scandal.

Is society so backward that being a good person is a bad thing?

Tim Tebow may not have “street cred,” but most mothers would be proud to have their daughter marry him.

Despite his clean living and religious life, the NFL is about winning. The big question surrounding Tebow is if he can play professional football as well as he did in college. He answered questions about his mechanics by changing them. He had his supporters and his detractors.

I wanted Tim Tebow to succeed. I wanted to see a good human being come out on top, a nice guy finish first.

Unfortunately, I now have to root for Tebow to fail.

He is no longer a good kid. He is an infidel, the personification of all that is evil in this world.

He is now a member of the Denver Broncos.

From a football standpoint, Denver is the worst city in America. It is an orange and blue cesspool that is the enemy of the Silver and Black of the Oakland Raiders.

It is not fair. The Raiders tried to get John Elway, but he was traded to Denver instead.

The Raiders were a victim of their own success. They were so good for so long that they never got to draft a #1 quarterback. We laughed as the Chargers picked Ryan Leaf. The Chargers did have Dan Fouts, and The Broncos had Elway. The Chiefs never had the all world leader. Len Dawson was not in the Elway league.

The Raiders finally thought they had their all world leader in JaMarcus Russell. He is not as big a bust as Ryan Leaf, but he is on the verge of coming close.

Meanwhile the Broncos had Jake Plummer and Jay Cutler. The Raiders did have Darryl Lamonica, Ken Stabler, Jim Plunkett, Kerry Collins, and Rich Gannon. Yet none of them were the #1 pick that lasted 15 years.

I wanted Jay Cutler. The Raiders bypassed him and the Broncos drafted him, where he would throw for thousands of yards.

The thought of Tebow throwing obscene amounts of touchdowns in 20 games over the Raiders until 2020 makes me ill to the point where I would be better off blind rather than have 20/20 vision.

Sorry, Tim. You seem like a nice guy, but you are the wrong color. Yes, when it comes to football, I discriminate based on color. I love silver and black, and detest blue and orange.

Tim Tebow needs to follow Jay Cutler’s example and find a reason to leave town. Now I can root for Cutler again since he is out of Denver.

As long as Tebow belongs to the evil ones, he needs to be defeated.

It is not personal. It is football.

He needs to fail.

The Oakland Raiders have a new linebacker named Rolando McClain. Hopefully he will repeatedly belt Tebow to the ground when it counts.

Welcome to the NFL, Tebow. A Silver and Black avalanche on defense awaits you.


Politics, football, and the Constitution.

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

Today I am speaking to the Laguna Wood Republican Club. Tomorrow I address the California State College Republicans Convention at USC before heading down to San Diego for a 5 day swing kicked off with Evan Sayet’s Right to Laugh tour.

I have nothing to say about Earth Day. Yesterday was NFL Draft Day, the one area of life where merit and substance actually matter.

On Sunday I will have complete analysis of the NFL Draft.

Today, I want to focus on one issue that has serious implications not just for the National Football League, but for society at large.

Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger (who is still not Jewish and resembles Will Ferrell) fought the law, and the law, aka Commissioner Roger Goodell, won.

Big Ben was suspended six games for his role in an alleged sexual assault that took place in a bar bathroom with a barely legal girl that had consumed alcohol. Opinions sharply diverged.

The National Football league has benefited from having several strong commissioners.

Bert Bell was highly regarded. Pete Rozell created Monday Night Football and oversaw the first Super Bowl and the AFL-NFL merger. Paul Tagliabue presided over 20 years of labor peace and an exponential increase in the wealth of the NFL brand through multi-billion dollar television deals.

Roger Goodell cannot be judged until he navigates the next labor deal. If football is off the air in 2011, Goodell will be tarnished. However, he should be given sky high praise for implementing a tough personal conduct policy. He has stated that no player is above the league, and he has backed up those words.

(For those thinking that Goodell is just a grumpy guy, this is insane. He is married to Jane Skinner, which makes being in a bad mood impossible.)

Pacman Jones was suspended for a year. Tank Johnson and Chris Henry were suspended eight games, half a year.

Michael Vick served two years in prison for dogfighting. When he came back, Goodell suspended him another four games (reduced to two) in addition. Yes Vick had served his time, but as Goodell repeatedly points out, that does not absolve him of his debt to the NFL.

One area of contention for some is that a player does not have to be convicted of a crime to be suspended.

This is very serious from a legal standpoint. The NFL conduct policy states that conduct detrimental to the league can result in sanctions. Detrimental is a subjective term, and the commissioner has broad powers.

While Goodell has powers that would make some dictators envious, he does not act capriciously. He has a track record of conducting very thorough investigations. He goes out of his way to strike a delicate balance between rehabilitation and punishment.

Yet the Ben Roethlisberger situation was like no other.

Roethlisberger was accused by a young woman of getting her liquored up, taking her in the bar bathroom, and sexually assaulting her. Goodell met with many people during his investigation, from Roethlisberger himself to the district attorney investigating the legal case.

After his investigation was completed, Goodell sanctioned Big Ben six games (which could be reduced to four).

Goodell was not deterred by Roethlisberger’s fame or his two Super Bowl championships. Goodell has been praised for not giving the top players special treatment.

Yet one nagging issue about this one case has given even Goodell supporters some pause.

It is one thing that Roethlisberger was not convicted of a crime. He was not even charged.

That’s right. The district attorney decided not to bring charges against Big Ben. Yet Goodell brought the hammer down anyway.

It is important to understand that not bringing charges does not mean innocence. The DA offered gory details that he believes happened but cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The DA deserves praise for treating Big Ben fairly. He was not treated better or worse than anybody else. The DA felt he did something bad, but did not start a weak case.

Goodell believed that Roethlisberger’s behavior, while not criminal, was abominable.

Goodell’s comments on the matter were as crystal clear as they were sensible.

“I recognize that the allegations in Georgia were disputed and that they did not result in criminal charges being filed against you.”
“My decision today is not based on a finding that you violated Georgia law, or on a conclusion that differs from that of the local prosecutor. That said, you are held to a higher standard as an NFL player, and there is nothing about your conduct in Milledgeville that can remotely be described as admirable, responsible, or consistent with either the values of the league or the expectations of our fans.”
“Your conduct raises sufficient concerns that I believe effective intervention now is the best step for your personal and professional welfare.”

Commissioner Goodell has the moral authority to lead, but what happens if he gets challenged?

What if Big Ben had decided not to accept the decision?

He was not charged with a crime. Does he have a legal case to appeal his suspension?

Courts have given professional sports franchises wide latitude to police themselves. They would be reluctant to intervene, especially since the overall conduct policy has been widely successful. It is one thing to be too lax in enforcing laws, but would a court really want to criticize a league that wants strict adherence to the law above and beyond what is required?

Mr. Goodell is responsible for a multi-billion dollar brand. Yet does that give him the right to sacrifice players like pawns?

Again, I think Goodell is fabulous (I have met him several times and told him so).

Yet what if the girl accusing Roethlisberger turns out to be lying?

One thing working against Big Ben is that this is the second allegation against him. A woman in Tahoe is claiming that he sexually assaulted her in his hotel room in 2008. No criminal charges have been filed, but she is suing him civilly.

However, Big Ben vehemently denies those charges, and is countersuing.

Could both women be lying?

Yes, they could.

Yet Goodell conducted his investigation. He found the allegations credible. Also, since Roethlisberger gave her alcohol, and admittedly took her into the bathroom, he is at the very least guilty of very poor judgment. That is what Goodell is upset about. This time it was bad judgment. If Goodell lets this go, and then Roethlisberger does something worse, Goodell would get hammered.

There are no easy answers to this question.

Ben Roethlisberger was not charged with a crime.

He was guilty of conduct detrimental to the league.

Goodell may have come down a bit hard (I think a one or two game suspension would have been sufficient. Six games is much more than I expected), but Roethlisberger could have avoided this situation altogether. Goodell did not “make an example” of him. The punishment seems very consistent with Goodell’s overall tough posture.

I am concerned that a player can be suspended without being charged with a crime. Yet I am also concerned that without strong discipline, football will be as out of control as other sports leagues. Bad behavior has been sharply reduced. The tough conduct policy has been successful.

Perhaps the issue is not whether a professional sports league is above the constitution. Another way of looking at it is that nobody is legally entitled to play professional sports. The pursuit of happiness does not guarantee a happy result.

Roethlisberger plays a game. Being suspended from his job is not the same as having his liberty taken away. There is no incarceration involved in this case.

This situation was avoidable, and Goodell clearly balanced rehabilitation with punishment. He described his actions as an intervention, and mentioned Roethlisberger’s welfare in addition to that of the league.

The Pittsburgh Steelers will be without their star quarterback for six games.

The league will remain as strong as ever, and Roger Goodell must be given credit for that.


Bay Area Patriots Tax Day Tea Party

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

On April 15th, at Union Square in San Francisco, I was the headliner at the Bay Area Patriots Tax Day Tea Party.

The belly of the beast was there, and I put my tongue right in it.

I would like to thank Sally Zelikovsky an Gini Wolters of the Bay Area Patriots for putting on a spectacular event that was a total and complete success on every level.

1000 people were in attendance, and the group of speakers was as diverse (real diversity, not the phony kind the left trumpets) as they were pleasant. Television media and KSFO caught the action, and action was plentiful.

For those who mistakenly thought they were at the Mrs. Universe Pageant, that is understandable. Between Mrs. Zelikovsky, Mrs. Wolters and radio host Melanie Morgan, there was no shortage of models in case the local lingerie company was looking for new talent.

(I was determined to have Morgan before bed, but since Melanie is married, I settled for Captain Morgan instead. By the time the bottle was done I could not tell the difference between Melanie and Captain anyway. No, not really.)

This was no conference of bigots. It was the conservative Woodstock, minus the drugs. San Francisco has never been so clean and civilized.

Mrs. Zelikovsky kept a tight control over the event. Violence was loudly condemned at the outset. This was a peaceful gathering of concerned citizens.

Several people did show up with Hitler and Nazi signs. They were liberal plants. Mrs. Zelikovsky was well prepared. She had several security people who were assigned to fan the crowd and root out any inappropriate material. Supporters were equipped with pink “infiltrator” signs. When a leftist plant would show up holding a Nazi sign, the infiltrator sign had an arrow pointed right at them so that the entire crowd would know that they were a plant.

The Pelosiraptor called the Tea Party attendees “astroturf.” The astroturf was on the left, and it was smoked out perfectly. The grassroots organizers did not let the left hijack the event.

(When I heard the Pelosiraptor use the word astroturf in a sentence, I thought that another liberal woman had just admitted to being in Bill Clinton’s pickup truck.)

The left, in San Francisco of all places, surrendered. They wanted violence, but still fail tog rasp that the violence is coming from them. Mrs. Zelikovsky used the tactics of the left against them, which is why this event was flawless. The trains ran on time.

T-shirts saying “Reset 2010” were sold in abundance.

Critics of the event were so desperate that the best they could do was point out that I was short, and had unkempt hair (apparently only liberals are allowed to have unkempt hair on windy days).

I was too busy arriving in their city and making a ton of money on book sales to notice. I could not hear the critics. I had a large bankroll stuck in my ear.

Liberals on the internet cringed over their inability to disrupt this event. One liberal complained about the impolite nature of conservatives. He expressed himself by cursing in front of his own child. I pointed out that foul language would not be tolerated in this arena, and the miscreant sheepishly apologized.

Mrs. Wolters had her article on the event publishes in American Thinker. As she accurately and proudly pointed out, the right out-Alinskyed the left.

Pictures of the event abounded.

The left is on the run. The Bay Area Patriots stormed Union Square, held a peaceful event, and encountered virtually no resistance. The left will claim that they had no desire to waste their time disrupting the event. They did try, and they did fail in the typical liberal tradition. Like bullies, they fled when confronted.

This was not just a victory for the Bay Area Patriots. This rally was a victory for ordinary people everywhere. The masses spoke in the Pelosiraptor’s back yard, and the Pelosiraptor had to deal with it.

Deal with it liberals. Patriots from the Bay Area are not backing down.

This is just the beginning.


Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Iran, and Unicorn Sanctions

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Five entities have gotten into trouble lately. In no particular order, they are Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the nation of Iran, and unicorns.

(For those wondering about the recent unicorn scandal involving griffins, I will defer to the Gutfeldosaurus and his Redeye crew.)

Goldman Sachs has recently been accused of unsavory business practices. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae engaged in risky business practices that nearly brought down the entire global financial system. The nation of Iran wants to blow up the world.

All of these entities are on or have been on the hot seat. There has been talk of sanctioning them.

They all have something else in common.

They will all be fine. Absolutely nothing is going to happen to them.

Anybody who believes that nobody is above the law needs to stop living in Candyland and observe the entities I referenced. They are absolutely above the law.

Let’s start with Goldman Sachs. As a creature of Wall Street, I can say as a professional that the United States government has had its head so far up Goldman’s anus that determining the separation point is difficult.

Goldman Sachs for a long time has been considered the gold standard of Wall Street. Every stockbrokerage professional wants to work for them or JP Morgan.

(Full disclosure: I applied to work there in the 1990s. I did not work there. I do not own stock in the company, but own shares of other brokerage firms.)

The reputation that Goldman Sachs walked on water was in part due to the fact that they were seen as truly hiring the very best and brightest. Some firms will hire you without a high school diploma. Goldman likes MBAs. In fact, without one, getting in the door is next to impossible.

Similar to Harvard in the educational field, Goldman was able to coast upon its reputation to get top talent, which enhanced its reputation. It was an upward spiral.

Yet despite allegations…and again, innocent until proven guilty…Goldman is untouchable. President Obama will talk tough, but neither he nor anybody else in government wants to lay a glove on this firm.

Goldman Sachs are Democrats. Former Socialist Governor Jon Corzine used to be the CEO before being fired for being himself. Long before that, Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin came from Goldman.

Goldman rakes in huge bonuses, Democratic administrations rail against Wall Street Greed, and both sides laugh it off. If Goldman actually believed the government would harm them, they would not have donated so much to Barack Obama.

Also, unlike the other entities, this is one even Republicans do not have the stomach to fight. Hank Paulson was a Goldman guy.

Barack Obama is not going to pick a fight with one of his biggest campaign donors. He will rail about greed, blame Republicans, and this will quietly fade away. Anybody who thinks that Robert Rubin and John Corzine are going to be investigated needs to have their head examined.

Mr. Obama may try to claim that Goldman was a pure entity until the George W. Bush Enron/Halliburton/Neocon Cabal took over, and that Goldman is pure now that they left, but this assertion would be too ludicrous even for some liberals, much less moderate reasonable voters.

As Bill Murray said in the movie Kingpin, “Finally,I am above the law. I can buy my way out of anything.”

Goldman Sachs is safe.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are twin corrupt entities. For years there were warnings that these two firms were on the precipice. They will escape serious scrutiny for the same reason they did back then.

(I never owned stock in either of these firms.)

Fannie and Freddie are seen as performing a noble social good. They help minorities own homes.

While increasing minority home ownership is a laudable goal, it cannot come at the expense of the entire financial system. Also, in another example of liberalism harming people it wanted to help through fake compassion, the mortgage crisis disproportionately hurt minorities.

Politically correct lending was not the only reason the financial system melted down. However, liberals are even more disingenuous than usual when they claim that such lending had zero to do with the collapse.

Fannie and Freddie are untouchable because three individuals will never be investigated.

Christopher Dodd, the drunken Senator who helped fellow drunk Ted Kennedy sexually assault a waitress, is up to his eyeballs in corruption scandals. He is resigning to avoid a humiliating loss at the polls in a state where he should win easily. When a man is too corrupt for Connecticut, there are few options left. Even New Jersey seems to be turning the corner with Chris Christie replacing Jon “Goldman Sachs” Corzine.

Barney Frank is not allowed to be criticized for any reason. He is a homosexual liberal. Unless he becomes a Republican (gay Republicans can be destroyed along with all minority conservatives), he will be able to play the homosexual card.

Barney Frank had one boyfriend operate a prostitution ring out of his home. He had another boyfriend operate a drug ring out of his home. He had an inappropriate sexual relationship with an officer of a company that his financial services panel was supposed to be regulating. Does anybody think a Republican could get away with this?

Any time anybody criticizes any of his inappropriate relationships, he accuses them of attacking his sexuality. Republicans, terrified of being seen as intolerant, give Mr. Frank a free pass.

There is nothing…absolutely nothing…about a person’s sexuality that in any way connects to their financial decisions. If I argue that capital gains taxes should be cut, Barney Frank will find a way to connect that to anti-gay bigotry.

In addition to Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank, a third man who is beyond criticism will never be investigated. That man is former Fannie CEO Franklin Raines. Mr. Raines is a black Democrat (with Republicans it would be a Republican who happens to be black, but with Democrats the identity comes first).

Yet his race is not what gives him the most protection. Franklin Raines can bring down Bill Clinton, and nobody who can harm Bill Clinton is going to testify.

In 1995, Bill Clinton vetoed the 7 year balanced budget deal that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans passed. Dick Morris warned him that without a balanced budget deal, he would be vulnerable in 1996. He was dragged to the table kicking and screaming When Democrat praise Clinton and themselves for budget surpluses, they are liars. Islamist David Bonior fought it every step of the way, as did Dick Gephart. It was Gingrich that brought the surpluses, along with the internet boom.

Yet without Franklin Raines, there would have been no budget deal, eventually signed in 1997.

Raines gave Clinton cover. Clinton was soon facing an impeachment scandal in 1998. He needed the Congressional Black Caucus to save him. Raines was a proud public example of Clinton giving a black man heroic status.

Raines was less successful as the Fannie CEO. He drove the company into the ground, and was punished with a 100,000,000 dollar settlement package. This was a platinum parachute.

He will never be called on the carpet. While criticism of him by Republican may lead to the usual yawn inducing charges of racism, the bigger reason Raines is untouchable is because if he goes down, the entire 1997 budget deal gets discredited. Bill Clinton will get tarnished, but so will Newt Gingrich. Republicans effusively praised Raines at the time. Given that Republicans have surrendered the mantle of fiscal responsibility, they do not want the last group of Republicans to possess the high ground on that issue to lose their aura.

On the foreign policy front, the nation of Iran has a blank check to blow up Israel and anybody else it wants.

Liberals like to portray conservatives as warmongers itching to blow up Iran. Conservatives respond by claiming that liberals are doing nothing but curling up in a fetal position and hoping for the best. Liberals respond that they favor a middle ground in the form of tough sanctions.

The only problem is that the sanctions are never going to happen.

If liberals want to be honest, they should just say that Iran is not a threat. They should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because we have them, and fair is fair. We should not have the right to bully another nation (except Israel of course).

Sanctions against Iran will not happen. Not now, not ever. The Iranians are laughing all the way to the blood stained oil bank.

Russia and China do not want sanctions. They have a permanent veto. China and Russia do whatever they want whenever they want. Why? Because they can.

They have nuclear weapons. Once a nation has nukes, they have veto power. This is the very reason Iran cannot get them.

China and Russia oppress their own citizens. They are very bit as murderous of dissidents as the worst human rights violators. What do we say? Nothing.

(This is not to imply that I am obsessed with human rights. I am just pointing out liberal hypocrisy when they claim to care).

Even if the most watered down of sanctions were to somehow pass, they would be toothless. There will be no enforcement mechanisms.

The left falls back on the ridiculous notion that Iran will not bomb Israel because then they would be obliterated. This applies logical reasoning to a regime led by fanaticism and emotion. Armageddonijad may be nuts, but at least he is a true believer with principles, psychotic though those principles may be.

The Chinese own our debt. We cannot make them cooperate. We have no leverage. The Russians will do whatever they please. They also have oil we need.

Despite the fact that liberals constantly attack conservatives for Laissez Faire policies, Barack Obama is going to be the king of Laissez Faire.

Free passes are being handed out. If you are Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Iran, enjoy complete immunity from any prosecution or sanctions.

Anybody thinking otherwise should wait for sanctions on unicorns, a more likely occurrence.