Cut off the addicts!

Anyone who has ever lived with an abusive alcoholic knows the drill:


He's sweet and generous, accommodating and even helpful when he knows he's going to get a drink. He's still pretty magnanimous while he's drinking the first few. The problems exist when he is allowed too much or when he is cut off entirely.


Take the GOP establishment, for example: When they are given free access to taxpayer money, they are nearly as reckless in using it as Democrats. Sure, they are less likely to use it to fund things like abortion, but what about "No Child Left Behind," "TARP," bank bailouts, and any number of "green" initiatives such as the curly light-bulb mandate?


Enter the Tea Party, that mismatched and disorganized group of fed-up patriots who stood up and refused to be counted any longer as enablers...


When the Tea Party first burst onto the scene, the GOP tried to embrace them. "You're right, big government spending is bad." "We can quit any time we want to, stick with us and you'll see." And until the 2010 midterm elections, the GOP felt that they had done a decent job containing the Tea Party.


Once the "new class" moved in on Capitol Hill, congressional freshmen started doing the unthinkable: not only did they stand up against the Democrats, they also stood up against attempts by the established GOP to compromise with the Democrats. The GOP establishment realized quickly that if they wanted to be allowed even a few drinks a day, their allies were not in the Tea Party. And so the GOP made a deal with the devil, compromising on debt ceiling raises and tax cut extensions, to avoid the tee-totaling demanded by the Tea Party.


And now, in an election that stands to be one of the most important election cycles in United States History, the GOP sees their next fix slipping away. They see the Tea Party for what it really is, and they turn on it, viciously at times. They try to convince voters that the only way conservatives can win is to pick a more moderate, "electable" (read: establishment) candidate. They assist the media in bringing down the more conservative candidates, and then pretend that they did it "for the good of the Party." Why do you think the GOP establishment is so set on Romney? Because he's the best guy for America in 2012? Doubtful. More than likely it's because Romney's supporters tend to hate the Tea Party. And because he has a history of compromising moral ground to gain political ground. (He appointed liberal judges in Massachusetts because "conservative ones never would have been approved anyway.")


And the battered American public must choose. 
They can listen to the establishment: "We've been doing this for a long time, you need to trust us. We know what we're doing, and it's for your own good that we do it. Besides, if you leave you don't have anywhere to go - I mean, you know that a third party candidate can never win, so why bother trying?"
Or they can listen to the Tea Party: "The establishment needs you more than you need them. What they're really saying is that you aren't smart enough to choose a good candidate on your own, so they're going to do it for you. They are doing everything in their power to hold you back because they know that you have the power to stop them too."


The question we have to ask ourselves this (and every) election cycle: Do I trust myself more than I trust the government? If the answer is no, we have already lost the Republic.

Baker for Missouri District 1

In yesterday's post, I mentioned the fact that Missouri District 1 has been struggling under Democrat control since 1949. In fact, the District has been under the thumb of one family since 1969. From 1969-2001, District 1 was represented by William Lacy "Bill" Clay Sr. In 2001, he passed the reins to his son William "Lacy" Clay Jr.

During their tenure, both Bill Clay Sr. and Lacy Clay Jr. have watched while policies they have supported have compounded the problems already being faced by the St. Louis area. Increased regulations and corporate taxes combined with strengthening labor unions have caused an unprecedented flow of population away from the city and even from the state. Factories have been moved out of the city, out of the county, and even to other states or other countries to avoid oppressive regulations. Some entire businesses have been shut down entirely in the aftermath of government bailouts that were designed to "save or create" jobs - just apparently not in St. Louis.

Yesterday I questioned why, in the face of such obvious need, Ed Martin would step outside his own desperate district to launch a campaign elsewhere. The answer is as depressing as it is simple: most people actually believe, politically speaking, that Missouri District 1 is a lost cause. They believed that Bill Clay was their only choice, and that Lacy Clay was the natural successor. They believe that anyone who would dare to launch a campaign against a Clay would be destined for a quick defeat, and thus far history has proved them right. 

So what kind of man would launch such a campaign?

Martin Baker, for a start. 

So who is Martin Baker? He would tell you he's just a regular guy who sees a need in his own hometown. He would tell you that he is standing up because someone needs to stand up against the liberal policies that are taking our city - and our nation - down the wrong path. He would tell you that he is standing up because his faith and his education have taught him that occasionally the little guy has to stand alone for a difference to be made. (Think David and Goliath...)

But don't be fooled into thinking that Martin Baker is the "little guy." He is a fixture in St. Louis conservative circles, and co-founder of Move-On-Up.org, a social network for African American conservatives. He is a former Navy Seal (And he is probably yelling at me through his computer for telling you that) who looks at his time in service as something he owed his country rather than a feather in his own cap.

And please don't make the mistake of thinking that he is standing alone. 

Ed Martin for...what was that again?

Everyone in St. Louis knows Ed Martin. In 2010, he rose to prominence as a Tea Party darling in the Missouri District 3 Congressional race that he narrowly lost to incumbent Russ Carnahan (yes, one of THOSE Carnahans). Since then, he has remained a fixture in the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition - and a point of contention for many others involved with the group.

In early 2011, following a redistricting that eliminated Missouri's 3rd Congressional District, Martin announced his intentions to challenge Democrat Claire McCaskill for her US Senate seat in 2012. His decision was made in the wake of an announcement from former Senator Jim Talent (who lost the seat to McCaskill in 2006) that he would not be entering the race, choosing instead to remain in his position with The Heritage Foundation. (Talent is currently working as an adviser for the Romney Presidential campaign.)

Just four months after Martin began his Senatorial campaign, another announcement gummed his game. Long time Missouri District 2 Representative Todd Akin threw his hat in the ring, joining the campaign to unseat Clair McCaskill. Within days of Akin's campaign kickoff, Martin made a new announcement of his own: he would be dropping out of the Senate race and instead be seeking Akin's old seat.

The Missouri District 2 race, specifically the battle between Ed Martin and fellow Republican candidate Ambassador Ann Wagner, quickly became epic enough to be blamed for the recent schism within the St Louis Tea Party Coalition. Though that particular race only facilitated the problems already festering within, it became the tipping point for many involved.

But even that division seems now to be ireelevant, based on the whims of a mercurial candidate, since Ed Martin has changed course once again. This morning's press releases have him nailed down as a 2012 candidate for Missouri Attorney General.

But Missouri should be asking a couple of questions of Mr. Martin:

First, why has he never attempted to mount a campaign in his home district? Missouri District 1 has been struggling, strangling under Democrat control since 1949. The people in his own neighborhood are drowning under the weight of increased unemployment, and he chooses to step out on them to represent others.

Second, can we expect him to stay in the Attorney General's race if another, shinier candidate steps into the ring?

Did I tell you I'm running for reelection?

Last night's State of the Union Address, "An America Built to Last," was a farce. It was a Herculean effort in terms of pulling the wool over the eyes of the voting public, a massive exercise in forked-tongued double-speak and flat out lies. What was omitted from the speech screams nearly as shrilly as the hollow ring of what was actually said.  For your convenience (and, I'll admit, my own amusement) I will break it down for you here - what was said, what wasn't said, and what it all really means.


What he said: 

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. 

What he meant:

 Dude, did I ever tell you guys about the time I killed Bin Laden? I only bring it up because I wanted to remind you that I really do like the military. I don't want you to be confused by the fact that I spent the last two weeks silent while my administration condemned Marines for making a bad judgment call. 

Also, notice how I draw attention to the way the Armed Forces "work together?" You know how they do that? They do what they're told to do and they don't ask questions - sometimes they don't even ask questions when they should. I want you, the public, and Congress to "work together" the way the military services do - they shut up, quit whining, and do what I tell them to do. They're not concerned with personal ambition because they're not allowed to have any when there is a mission at hand. You guys should be like that too.

What he said:

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect. 

What he meant:

It's been awhile since I've come out and said this, so I feel that I need to take this opportunity to remind you just one more time that this was all George W. Bush's fault. And the rich bankers too. OWS, this one's for you!

What he said:

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. 

What he meant:

You can't see the improvement yet, but trust me, it's here. And if you reelect me, maybe you'll get a chance to see it too. If you reelect me, I also promise to continue to bypass people who have the audacity to disagree with me by taking unilateral actions in the form of non-recess "recess appointments" and executive orders that don't need to pass Congressional muster.

What he said:

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company.

What he meant: 

Pay no attention to the Chrysler and GM workers who are still collecting unemployment checks. Pay no attention to the major factories that still stand empty in your towns. The auto industry was ,saved, I tell you!

What he said:

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let’s change it. First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home. Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.

What he meant:

Major companies shouldn't get tax breaks. Unless they're GE. 

What he said:

Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.

What he meant:

I'm going to create a few more government jobs. You're going to have to pay their salaries, benefits and pensions, but it will be ok because they're going to make sure you don't get cheated by China.

What he said:

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

What he meant:

A vote for me will ensure that more money goes to the teachers' unions. There will be no safeguards put into place to ensure that the money actually goes to the teachers or the students rather than the union bosses. That isn't anything new, I just wanted to make sure you were clear on that point.

What he said:

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

What he meant:

What Keystone Pipeline?

What he said:

That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

What he meant:

Banks are bad. Banks are evil. Imma punish them. (S'up, OWS?)

What he said:

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count. 

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans. 

What he meant:

More government jobs. Yes, you're going to be paying their salaries, benefits and pensions as well. But they're going to make and enforce new laws that mirror the ones that are already in place and should have been enforced by the DOJ before now anyway.

 What he said:

When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.

What he meant:

 Rich people owe you something simply because they have it and you don't. You can call it class warfare if you want, because if I were telling the truth, I would call it that too.

What he said:

Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

What he meant: 

Did I happen to mention that I am running for reelection this year? Obama 2012!!!

That brings us to the things he left out: 

I let my administration run roughshod over the Marines who peed on the dead Taliban fighters because I was hoping that it would draw attention away from the fact that my Attorney General allowed American guns to be trafficked into Mexico, resulted in at least one dead American Border Patrol Agent.

I repeatedly blame House Republicans for budget standoffs when the Senate has gone over 1000 days without passing a budget - which was their job in the first place. 

I give money to failing companies like Solyndra while refusing to support job-creating projects like the Keystone Pipeline because I have bought into the Al Gore version of a greener America - even if it costs us our current version of America to get it.

Pay no attention to the fact that members of my party and even former campaign staffers are doing everything they can to create an environment that is conducive to continued fraudulent voting practices in the 2012 election.

So, what should we make of this? There are two possibilities:
First, President Obama has bought stock in the manure he's currently shoveling. If that is the case, then  we need to vote him out in 2012 and elect someone who has the ability to discern fact from crap.
The second alternative is that President Obama knows exactly what is going on. He knows that his policies will not have the effects that he tells us they will. If that is the case, then we need to vote him out in 2012 and elect someone who is a little less comfortable deceiving the American people.

Identity Theft with Intent...to Perpetuate Voter Fraud?

On January 20th, the Des Moines Register posted the following story: 

"A Des Moines man has been arrested after police say he used, or tried to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz in a scheme to falsely implicate Schultz in perceived unethical behavior in office.

Zachary Edwards was arrested Friday and charged with identity theft.

The Iowa Department of Public Safety issued a news release saying Schultz's office discovered the scheme on June 24, 2011 and notified authorities.

The criminal complaint says Edwards fraudulently used or attempted to use the identity of Schultz or Schultz's brother with the intent to obtain a benefit. No other details were given.

The case did not appear yet in online court records and no attorney information was immediately available."

It seems like a simple case of identity theft, right? Arrest the guy, try him in front of a jury of his peers, and hope he gets the maximum two years that he deserves...right? Or do you think that maybe someone should check into the possible reasons that Matt Schultz was targeted?


Well, it just so happens that this Matt Schultz is the guy responsible for vote-counting in Iowa. According to AlexInCT of rightthinking.com "Clearly Schultz is not one of those people that would turn a blind eye to the usual fraud democrats depend on to put them over in close elections."


So who is Zachary Edwards? According to the research done by AlexInCT, Glenn Reynolds and others, though much of Edwards' biography has been scrubbed from the interwebs, the Wayback Machine confirms that he was an Obama staffer in Nevada and five other states.


Combine his obvious affiliation with the current administration with the fact that the Soros-propelled SoSP (Secretary of State Project) has been attempting to insert friendlies into State Offices in order to put them in the position to count votes, and the result is obvious. Edwards' attempt to steal Schultz's identity was more than likely for one benefit alone: if Schultz were to step down in the event that his reputation took a hit, his position would likely be filled by a Democrat. A position in Iowa, a key state in 2012, that will require the person in that position to preside over vote-counting and possible/likely voter fraud.


Hmmmm.

Guess which candidate is pushing violations of the Constitution?

I wish I could stop talking about Ron Paul. I really do. But I found that, over the course of the campaign, he has said a few things in debate that really concern me - and not on foreign policy issues this time. Rather, he has made some comments that speak to a grave and dangerous misunderstanding of the very Constitution he holds up as his dogma.


In the following video, from 17:30-20:50, Ron Paul discusses his stance on abortion.



He's right on about needing to get government out of medical care, and about the fact that care for a pregnant woman involves two patients. Where he goes off the rails is his claim that abortion should be a states' rights issue. 


Why is that a problem? He speaks repeatedly of what is and isn't Constitutional, but if he truly believes that an unborn child is a person (and he claims that he does) making abortion a states' rights issue is unConstitutional. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law. If the unborn child is, in fact, a "person," allowing states the opportunity to rescind that equal protection at will is a violation of the Constitution - one that Ron Paul vocally supports.


This reminds me a bit of my main problem with Newt Gingrich. He called himself a "Theodore Roosevelt Republican" and a "Realpolitik Wilsonian." If he doesn't understand the implications of those statements as a historian, that's pretty scary. If he does understand the implications, that's almost worse. The saving grace in Gingrich's case may be that he understands the voting public as much as he understands history - it is possible that he made those statements knowing that the average voter - even the average conservative - does not know the depth of damage done by Roosevelt and Wilson. They know about the National Park Service and San Juan Hill, and they know that Wilson tried to keep us out of World War I. Banking on that response from most voters, Gingrich's comments become less damning.


As for Ron Paul: if, as the Constitutional scholar and defender that he claims to be, he does not understand the blatant Constitutional violation his stance on this issue betrays, then we have a problem. If he does understand that it is a violation and holds the position anyway, perhaps we have a bigger one. It begs the question: what other positions might he be taking that either ignore or misrepresent the Constitution?

Off with his head!

Americans are used to people being beheaded in history books. 


For example, we know that in the Bible David cuts off the head of Goliath, and the head of John the Baptist is served up on a platter to Salome, the daughter of King Herod.


Islamic history included the beheading of Imam Hussein, the grandson of Muhammed.


European history counts dozens of beheadings from Britain alone on the orders of Richard the Third and Henry the Eighth. Mary Queen of Scots also met her end that way. France takes the prize, beheading some 40,000 (and killing countless others) during the Revolution, when their total population was 28 million.


And of course, no one can forget the fictional beheadings called for by the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.


More recently, Americans have been forced to observe the beheadings of Americans at the hands of Al Qaeda operatives. Soldiers and civilians alike have been subjected to this punishment, with many incidents being filmed and released by Al Qaeda networks.


Up until recently, however, beheading was something you read about. It was something you heard about if you were watching the CNN news-ticker. It was something you saw only if you frequented Al-Jazeera. 


There have been recent rumors about drug cartels beheading people to send messages, but those beheadings have been confined to Mexico and Colombia where the cartels have power, right? Not so much. Three separate beheadings in Arizona and Oklahoma over the past year look to be the work of cartels. Cartels. Beheading people. In the United States of America. Let that sink in.


And now ask why haven't we built that fence yet?