Discussion with a Liberal — Part 2

Wow, a lot of food for thought, and not something I have time to address all at once.

Yeah, I’m aware of the pitfalls of the Internet. As I said, I write for a blog, so I also visit other blogs and opinion sites, both Left and Right (Huffington Post and National Review, for example). I just use opinion sites to gauge what other people are saying. It’s not often I link to such sites to make a point unless it’s to highlight an interesting point that someone else has made.  Sites like Truth or Fiction, FactCheck.org and Snopes are fine for debunking erroneous information, but when I’m looking for the truth about something (the absolute truth, not someones version of it) I try to find original writings and original audio or video, both of which are not difficult to find if you know where and how to look.

There was a concerted effort on the part of Progressives beginning in the 30’s to re-write a lot of history, particularly political history, a largely underground movement originating with a handful of foundations (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc.) I used to have an excellent hour and a half video interview archived with a prominent statesman who was recruited back in the 30’s to be an integral part of the effort, but I can’t seem to find it. That was a couple computers back. The interview was done in the early 80’s, and the gentleman died shortly after the interview. Fascinating stuff — if I find it, I’ll forward a link, as it explains a lot. Anyway, history continues to be distorted to advance political goals. If you’ve looked at an elementary or high school history book lately, you know what I mean. But the distortion today has gone way beyond re-writing history to blatant efforts by the likes of a major network like NBC editing audio, video and 911 calls to advance an agenda or make someone look bad — or keep someone from looking bad.

WRT the Constitution, I hold the entire document, including the 27 amendments, inviolate. The amendments aren’t footnotes, they’re permanent changes to the document to reflect changing times.  The entire document forms the rules by which we govern ourselves, or at least that was the original plan. The rules are either rigid, but with a formal means of amendment or we have no rule of law. America has been the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of the planet, but, beginning a century ago, when original interpretation gave way to case law and precedent, the whole thing began to go off the rails, to the point that, today a large portion of what the federal government does is not constitutional according to original intent. Now, that said, the evolution of the Constitution during the Progressive era is so much toothpaste that can’t be put back in the tube, although, theoretically, I guess, it’s possible for case law and precedent to swing the pendulum back the other way. It’s probably not going to happen absent some kind of societal upheaval or economic collapse, and many people smarter than I am think we are getting very close to just such an event. Although I agree with the building consensus among many economists and historians that an economic collapse is more likely than an insurrection, it’s not something I obsess about, as it’s totally beyond my control, and I learned a long time ago not to dwell on things beyond my control — just be the best I can be on any given day, treat others as I’d like to be treated, hope that I don’t screw up too often, and when I do, learn from it so I don’t make the same mistake again.

Today’s politicians simply ignore the Constitution most of the time — several have even admitted as much publicly. I don’t consider myself a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination either, but I have put in a lot of study, attended a 2-day constitutional workshop sponsored by the Indiana Constitution Society in Indianapolis a couple years ago, and I’ve collaborated on several blog articles on different aspects of the Constitution. I have lots of Constitution-related resources archived, including a fully searchable file of the Federalist Papers, as well as the writings of Blackstone and Vatel. If you’re interested in understanding and learning more about the Constitution, the Federalist Papers are an excellent resource, because they explain, in the Founders own words, the rationale behind why the Constitution says what it says — a sort of reading between the lines of the Constitution, if you will. The original Federalist Papers are pretty heavy reading, but they were compiled into a book re-written in modern English a year or two ago. Once I’m retired (hopefully soon) I’m thinking of taking the free constitutional courses (101 & 102) offered by Hillsdale College on-line. Several of the people in my email forum have taken them, and have given them glowing reviews.

In college I had a major in Business Administration with a minor in Economics, and only an hour or two short of a dual minor in history, so this stuff has always fascinated me. I have always (well, for at least the last 20 years or so) attempted to have informed opinions. I think if everyone took that attitude, the world would be a whole lot better place. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and, as you noted, some opinions stink. A good, historical example of informed vs. uninformed would be: “Washington was not a religious man” (uninformed opinion based on what someone else has written about Washington). “Washington prayed to and referenced God regularly, both publicly and privately.” (informed opinion, backed up by Washington’s own words and writings).

More of my response in Part 3

Discussion with a Liberal — Part 1

For the last few weeks I’ve been engaged in an interesting email conversation with a Liberal who happens to be the husband of an old girlfriend of mine from high school. She is a self-described “knee-jerk Liberal”, and detests discussing politics because, I suspect, she’s is unable to defend her “knee-jerk” positions. Her husband, OTOH, approached me a while back, lamenting the fact that we have become such a hopelessly divided nation, and wanting to know if I had any thoughts on the subject. I said I thought the biggest problem is that each side has some misperceptions of what the other side believes, which, more often than not, prevents any attempts to find common ground; misperceptions that are often exacerbated by an agenda-driven media in an effort to further divide us.  I suggested we engage in a one on one discussion on the condition that we keep it civil.  Upon his agreement to give it a try, I led off with the following:

Splendid.  I’ve never been accused of being an ideologue, and I detest confrontational arguments that almost always end up in name-calling.  I look at political debate, first and foremost, as a learning and mind-expanding experience, rather than a win or lose situation, and, as a result, my thinking on a number of issues has changed over the years.  I have neither tolerance nor respect for people who lie or distort the facts to score political points.  For most of my life I was an unexamined Republican until this marvelous thing called the Internet came along, and I was able to not only question everything I heard, read and saw, but was able to at least attempt to search for the truth.  That the truth doesn’t have an agenda and doesn’t need a majority to prevail has become somewhat of my personal motto, and that’s the lens through which I try to examine every issue.

I view the Constitution as a contract between the government and the people by whose consent the government exists, not perfect, but better than any other governing document ever produced.  To anyone who says the Constitution is a living document that needs to change with the whims of the times by legislation, executive order or judicial fiat, I ask, would you work for me with a “living” employment contract, or borrow money from me with a “living” loan contract, or play poker with me using “living” rules?  I have yet to get a yes to those questions — from anyone.

On social issues, I’m pretty much an agnostic.  Neither the Constitution, nor any of the Founders in any of their writings addressed a need for the federal government to be involved in social issues, and I regret that issues like abortion and gay marriage are allowed to play such a predominant role in national politics.

Hopefully that gives you some idea of where I’m coming from.  What drives how you look at politics?

His response was not really what I expected, and, although he denies being a Liberal at the end, he voted for Obama — twice, an admission of sorts that he supports an uber-liberal agenda. Continue reading

Dystopia–In His Own Words.

Just prior to the 2008 elections, Barack Obama boldly stated,

“We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” (October 30, 2008)

Many among my conservative friends took that to be so much fluff; pretty much liberal boilerplate consistent with his whole “Hope and Change” campaign message.  Given, however, Obama’s background, cutting his teeth with the radical leftists/communists of his day (i.e., Frank Marshall Davis, Bernadine Dorn, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright) I believe I was one of the relative few that took him at his word.  Unlike most of America, conservatives such as myself and others who actually took the time to vet Obama, knew that background and worldview mattered, and that Obama’s past gave more than a glimpse of how he intended to govern in the present.

When Obama uttered those words, “.. fundamentally transform AmericaI knew he meant it. It was Obama himself who stated (emphases added),

“As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.  It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least, as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative libertiesSays what the States can’t do to you; says what the Federal Government can’t do to you, but doesn’t state what the Federal government or State Government must do on your behalf.”  (Barack Obama, June 18, 2001).

There is no question that Barack Obama was unhappy with his perception of unequal distribution of wealth that America so unfairly championed, and that he wanted to transform this nation into something more ‘equitable’ in his eyes.  The question was how, and to what extent.  Just how does one “fundamentally”  transform a nation whose very basis for existence is freedom, itself?  The only feasible answer is to transform that already-free nation, into a nation with fewer freedoms.  Given Dinesh D’Souza’s brilliant insights as to Obama’s worldview engendered by his past, one knew that Obama’s absolute contempt for what he saw as America’s unequal distribution of wealth would result in his promoting policies that would necessarily stifle economic growth.   Obama’s America would no longer be one of unbridled economic opportunity; rather, America would be a nation of egalitarian outcomes, regardless of effort; to coin a phrase, to each, according to his needs; from each, according to his means.  

As a means of bringing about this transformation, America could no longer be a free nation.  No where as free, at least, as it was at the time of he assumed his presidency.  Liberties would need to be forsaken to bring about his vision of utopia.  The free market system would need to be reined in, and done so in no small measure.   Obama would have four years, eight at most, to make this happen.  This transformation would need to be done quickly, and in a big way.

Enter Obamacare, America’s first stop on its train ride to Utopia. Against the wishes of 60-70 percent of Americans, and without the vetting of congressional legislators who rammed through the legislation, the United States Federal Government took control of a full one-seventh of the American economy, which had the net effect of driving up the cost of health care for all involved,  taking away freedom of choice, relegating freedom of conscience incompatible with the party line to irrelevancy, while at the same time having the no-doubt intended effect of casting a chilling pall on America’s ability to sustain economic growth and prosperity.  For those who wish to argue regarding this latter point, how better to right the wrongs of the perceived injustice of unequally-distributed wealth than to stifle the engine that creates such wealth?

As I’ve said, Obamacare is but stop one on America’s train ride to Obama’s Dystopia.  Obama’s seeming assault on everything traditional America has held dear for centuries appears to have taken on epidemic proportions.  Remember- Obama only has three and three-quarter years left.  Those who haven’t yet felt the pinch of his “transformations,” most likely have not yet realized that they, too, have been pinched.   Obama’s willing media accomplices can only cover for him for so long before a critical mass of Americans, admittedly as dull as many of them are, will start to put two-and-two together and finally determine that the hopey-changey unicorn jockey they voted for may actually have had something to do with the plight in which they suddenly find themselves.

Then what?

When the critical mass of Americans finally wake up one morning, to find that they have been played as chumps, they are liable to get a bit–shall we say, testy. When this inevitability finally does come home to roost, The TEA party protests that grew out of Rick Santelli’s historic February, 2009 rant will no doubt look like a series of school pep assemblies.   Such civil unrest would certainly be difficult to quell, and will no doubt be yet another bump in the tracks on the way to Obama’s Dystopian dream.

What to do, what do do? You can’t just sick the military after the troublemakers. Well, you could, I suppose, but then you risk pissing off your fellow travelers who have had a history of contempt for men and women in uniform.

What to do??

Since, at least philosophy- and policy-wise, one can take Obama at his word, one may get a clue as to Obama’s plans by again, studying his own non-TelePrompter inspired rhetoric:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”   -Barack Obama, July, 2008.

Yeah- remember that phrase?  Neither did a lot of other people.  Like the rest of Obama’s sordid past and rhetoric that if brought to the light of day would have rendered his election impossible, The media (true to their sycophantic nature) pretty much glossed over that little tidbit.  A powerful Civilian security force. Remind you of anyone?

So when you see articles like this, or like this, or like this, and then think, aww–Leo–take off that tinfoil hat!  You’re just blowing smoke.  That would never really happen here.  There’s no way.

Just remember.  I didn’t put those words into Barack Obama’s mouth.

He did.

Part 357, obAMATEUR Hypocrite…..

This says it all….

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” – Senator Barack Hussein Obama 2006

What changed?

Oh, that’s right he is now pResident.

By his own words, he has marked his pResidency a failure.  He has marked his leadership a failure.  He alone has shifted $6 trillion in debt to our children and grand-children.  He certainly has not led on the debt issue.  He has not lead on deficit reduction.  He just issues smug threats while generating fear amongst our citizens, especially the elderly – threatening them with non-payment of their Social Security.   He has not issued a budget, nor has Harry Reid passed a budget in almost four years.

Just more of the same…. while Democrats are out of power they make grandiose speeches against debt, deficits and irresponsible spending.  They regain power and everything they have said before is long forgotten.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan:  From Instapundit:

READER DENNIS MULCARE WRITES: “Perhaps, if you can encourage your readers to have their young children write Obama about their angst regarding the national debt, he will publish 23 ways to address federal spending.”

The Usual Democrat Hypocrisy – “We can, you can’t! – Because we said so…..”


This needs no further explanation.  This latest politicizing of a mental midget, who goes on a shooting rampage, by the left is typical of the Democrat playbook.

“Don’t let a crisis go to waste.”

Here are two of the biggest anti-gun zealots in the Senate, who, of course, make exceptions for themselves.  They feel the need to carry, while they want to deny us our 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!

First up: Diane Feinstein: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinstein-1995-her-concealed-carry-permit-i-know-urge-arm-yourself-because-thats-what-i-did

Next: Harry Reid:  http://freedomslighthouse.net/2012/12/18/democratic-senate-majority-leader-harry-reid-in-2010-extolled-the-virtues-of-guns-i-carried-a-gun-every-place-i-went-but-for-me-guns-are-more-than-that-about-self-defense-video-2010/

More to come….

It is amazing that these same people promote “reasonable” waiting periods (minimum 7 business days) for purchasing of a gun – our CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED and EXPLICIT 2nd Amendment right. BUTFEEL THAT A WAITING PERIOD (1-2 days) FOR AN ABORTION IS AN UNREASONABLE INFRINGEMENT ON A WOMAN’S “RIGHT” TO CHOOSE (and of course they are not worried about the lives of innocents then).

To quote, the Joker, aka Jack Nicholson, (on DC): “This town needs an enema!”

Update: Interesting perspective from a former burglar:


Imagine the whole country a gun free zone, if very short sighted proggies like bloch has their way.

Update 2: What would the forker and mitchie do in this situation???

Intruders enter your home because it is a gun free zone.  You call 911 the police do not show up.  Intruders still in home and have found you….. then what.

The following cases are all the reasons you need to arm yourself for your and your family’s protection.  The proggies can whine all they want “you don’t need a gun(s).”  But as shown above, Feinstein and Reid were armed ready to protect themselves, but still want to deny your RIGHT to protect yours and your family’s.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

Warren v. District of Columbia

Update 3: According to mitchie, bloch and co, this woman should have done nothing while waiting for the police to arrive, after all there is no need for her to defend herself.

Georgian Woman Hides Her Children and Shoots Intruder.

I’d Like to Thank Nancy Pelosi…

…as this time for ensuring that the Republican Party retains control of the House until at least the 2022 mid-terms:

House Democrats will introduce legislation to ban the production of high-capacity magazines on the first day of the next congressional session, the office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), one of the lawmakers sponsoring the bill, told The Huffington Post. The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act will mirror a failed bill introduced during the 112th Congress…

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m more than happy to re-fight the gun control debate with the Democrats – even after weeks of demonization and in the wake of the Newtown massacre, support for gun rights polls high and the NRA remains more popular than, for instance, Nancy Pelosi.

Now, to be sure, Democrats are not introducing this twaddle with any hope that it will be passed – it is just mindless fluff being fed to their base which demands they “do something” about gun violence (no, not the gun violence in gun-controlled Chicago…our liberals don’t care about that; perhaps because its mostly black and brown skinned kids being killed?).  But it will force Democrats to go on record – and the House GOP leadership should ensure that all Democrat proposals for gun control are fast-tracked for floor votes.  Democrats in red and purple areas of the country (and even some blue areas which manage to combine being a hippy with owning a gun…we’re looking at you Vermont and Oregon) will have to vote against, GOPers will gleefully vote against…and all Democrats will be tarred with a “gun grabber” brush for the 2014 mid-terms.

Given that we probably will go over the cliff and we will be blamed for it (somehow or another an asinine proposal to raise taxes on “the rich” is resonating more with the American people than the stark fact that we’re bankrupt and need to cut spending), I was wondering what we’d do to regain political traction.  Here it is – handed to us on a silver platter.  Yes, our Democrats are better at the nuts and bolts of politics…but, remember, they are liberal and thus will continue to fall in to idiocy.  Therein lies our hope for a better future…

California: A Liberal Failure

From Powerline:

…Today, California is the most spectacular failure of our time. Its government is broke. Productive citizens have been fleeing for some years now, selling their homes at inflated prices (until recently) and moving to Colorado, Arizona, Texas and even Minnesota, like one of my neighbors. The results of California’s improvident liberalism have been tragically easy to predict: absurd public sector wage and benefit packages, a declining tax base, surging welfare enrollment, falling economic production, ever-increasing deficits. Soon, California politicians will be looking to less glamorous states for bailout money. Things have now devolved to the point where California leads the nation in poverty…

Where California (and Detroit, and Chicago) are now is where Obama and his liberals want to lead us tomorrow – a place of bloated, corrupt government, spreading poverty compelling spreading dependency on government and a tiny, fabulously rich ruling elite living in guarded enclaves.  Is it part of  plan?  In a certain sense, yes – liberals don’t believe in people doing for themselves, so their policies are all designed to take control away from people and give it to government.  The problem is that when you do that the ability to create wealth withers away until all the wealth is concentrated in people who either inherited it or got it from government while the mass of people wallow in welfare-drugged poverty.

The good news is that liberalism is completely collapsing – Obama’s re-election is not the glad morn of a new liberalism; it is the death rattle of the liberalism brought to us in FDR’s New Deal.  In the end, it is probably better that Obama won – this way the complete failure of liberalism will rest upon the liberals, themselves.  While they will continue to blame Bush – and anything else they can point a finger at – I believe that by 2016 the finger of the people will point squarely at the liberals.  As long as we craft a positive program of reform and get a reasonably decent nominee, we’ll send them packing – and likely for good.

Keep the faith, keep fighting – and save as much money as you can:  its going to be a rough four years.

Proggies Act Surprised ….. We Told You So!

“On Obamacare……

As a result of obAMATEUR’s re-election and the highly improbability that ObamaCare being repealed, we’ve had several businesses come forward and state that this is going to affect the number of workers they have and hours they can work – two of them are  CEO of Papa Johns John Schnatter and Applebees franchisee owner Zane Tankel.  While these aren’t the only two, they are the latest business owners who have publicly stated the harmful impact that ObamaCare will have on their businesses, their workers’ jobs and benefits.

The proggies are “shocked”.  They took to Twitter to demonize these business owners (hey they learned from the professional agitator using Alinski, his mentor’s tactics) , and pushing for others to boycott their businesses.  Hey you proggies – Can’t say you weren’t warned!  Business owners have been out there telling you exactly what you had coming to you if obAMATEUR was re-elected and ObamaCare stayed the law of the land.  Of course, you chose not to listen to those warnings.  It doesn’t make it these business owner’s problems! We told you so!!!

On to raising taxes……..

obAMATEUR is consumed with obsession about raising taxes on the “rich”.  We hear it in the press about his “wanting to make a deal” with Republicans for the so-called “balanced approach”.  All we have heard so far is the raising taxes on the “wealthy” – some balanced approach!  The complicit media (aka the propaganda arm of the White House) has done nothing but interview Republican and talk about raising taxes.  They have yet to question the obAMATEUR about the other half of the “balanced approach” – spending cuts.  Recently, on Good Morning America, they stated concern how “spending cuts will affect the economy”!  Excuse me?  We have seen MASSIVE government spending stagnate an economy.  We have proof that tax cuts work – several instances in fact.  Even the CBO disagrees with the lopsided “balanced approach” on raising taxes – Raising taxes has nothing to do with our fiscal cliff and getting our finances in order..

Just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney.”

If we gave you your way and CONFISCATED ALL THE WEALTH of the so-called targeted “wealthy”, you would have enough money to run the government for a few months.  That’s it!!!  We have a spending problem in this country.  This pResident who has ran up the debt than the first 42 presidents COMBINED!  Again, it is not our problem that you PREDICTABLY ignored FACTS and re-elected this buffoon.  We told you so!!!

More recent higher jobless claims ….

We now have 439,000 new jobless claims for the first full week after the disastrous reelection of the “one we have been waiting for” – the obAMATEUR and I do mean AMATEUR!  Pennsylvania and Ohio led the pack.  Two unionized states.  Two crucial states won by obAMATEUR.  The obAMATEUR sycophants are trying to put the best possible spin on these numbers — saying that they’re due to layoffs from Hurricane Sandy.  What utter CRAP!.  Layoffs in Ohio?  Pennsylvania?  Heavy union states?  We had New Jersey turn away NON UNION ELECTRICAL WORKERS, as an example of their dedication to union labor even in a disaster such as this!!!!

These layoffs are the direct result of re-electing this anti-business failure (a failure at everything he has put his hands on) of a pResident.  Businesses have been struggling that last four years.  There has been no recovery.  There have been BILLIONS of dollars spent by these businesses to comply with new regulations coming from this White House and the EPA.  The EPA will soon unleash the flood of new so-called “clean air” rules that will send energy costs through the roof.  Taxes on small business owners are going to rise.  Capital gains taxes on investors – going up.  There is absolutely NOTHING on the horizon with four more years of obAMATEUR that gives one iota of hope for a better business and economic climate ahead.  So … it’s time to go lean … and that’s just what these businesses are doing.  They’re shedding employees to get under the ObamaCare threshold. They’re looking for ways to get more efficient so that they can rid themselves of unnecessary workers.  As a result we see jobless claims are on the rise .. the highest number since the middle of 2011.

The obAMATEUR, his sycophants, drones and lemmings want to blame it on the storm.  Well .. .they’re half-right.  It’s a storm all right, but not Hurricane Sandy.  It’s the storm of taxes and regulations that are coming with the reelection of an anti-business, tax and spend president.

Elections have consequences.  Here’s your pink slip.  Enjoy.  And if you’re an obAMATEUR voter, I’m enjoying it right along with you.  You did it to yourselves.  We told you so!!!


Our Opponents

Sarah Hoyt over at Instapundit went trolling trough Democratic Underground and came up with this gem:

…Let’s say that you have the ability to print your currency using your computer printer, and every merchant accepted your printouts as a valid exchange for goods and services. You need to pick up your dry cleaning? You printout a $20 bill and your cleaners hand over your garments without question. Same would be true for your mortgage, groceries, car note, etc. Your creditors even accept your printouts as payment on your debts.

Given this, how can you ever be broke? Answer, you cannot be broke. The U.S. government is not in debt simply because it can create currency to pay off the debt, and our creditors gladly accept our currency as payment on our debts. You see, the world needs our dollars because the world needs oil, and in order to buy oil, you need dollars, which means that the world needs to stockpile dollars, and that means that the U.S. can print all of the money that it wants without incurring massive hikes in interest rates to attract lenders…

This is beyond weapons-grade stupid – so stupid that  you are actually at a loss about how to answer it.  Last night after the debate I got in to a Facebook argument with a liberal who was flabbergasted that I believe sea power to be important.  She demanded proof that we need a powerful Navy!  She persisted in this view even after I noted that 90% of global commerce goes by sea and if there isn’t a benevolent power to keep the sea lanes open, that might be a problem.  A couple months ago I heard a couple people debating about the election and one of them was going to vote for Obama because “I’m worried that Romney is going to take away women’s rights”.  During the 2nd Presidential debate we had the questioner who wondered what Romney is going to do about “women making 72% of what men make”.  The point I’m making here is that we’re dealing with people – some of whom are actually intelligent and well meaning – who are so ignorant of the basic facts that they don’t even know what the issues confronting us are.

I’m a convinced democrat for the simple reason that anything worth doing is worth doing badly – meaning that the most important and crucial decisions of life (whom to marry, where to work, who gets to make the laws, etc) should be done by those least prepared by education and training to rule on the matter.  This is because if it is left in the hands of “experts” you’re either going to get boneheaded “experts” who make a hash of things or you’re going to get really effective “experts” who will create an inhuman tyranny.  Among the broad mass of the people, on average, you are going to get common sense most of the time.  You will, though, also get nonsense every now and again (and thus Obama is President).  But, on the whole, I trust that if my fellow fools of the world get to make the decisions then I’m going to be safer and happier.  But, my goodness, how did it happen that the quotient of people who are the big winners in the ignorant fool sweepstakes wind up so heavily concentrated in the Democrat party?

You’d expect that each party would have about an equal share of people who don’t really know what is going on – but we here on the GOP side, a few kooks aside, tend to know at least what the argument is about.  Our Democrats seem to be increasingly living in a fantasy world.  A place divorced from reality where the Navy is unimportant, access to birth control is a key issue and the government can never go broke because we can always just print up more money!

Something must happen on the Democrat side – a break must come.  Some how or another reality must eventually make an entrance over there.

Our New eBook: The Audacity of Harry Reid (Bumped)

Matt and I decided that since Harry Reid was using the Senate of the United States of America to issue slanderous attacks on Mitt Romney that it is appropriate to bring up the Harry Reid we came to know as we wrote Caucus of Corruption.  This new eBook, The Audacity of Harry Reid, is available on Amazon for your Kindle, or Kindle app on your smartphone, and it not only covers some of the issues we wrote about in 2007 but brings the story of Harry Reid right up to the 2012 campaign.

Here is the link to the book.   The price is a mere $2.99.  This is a quick read but shows the depths of Reid’s hypocrisy when he attacks anyone over their finances.