Independence Day is right around the corner. In just a couple of day's time as of this writing, we'll be witnessing all manner of festivities. Their will be picnics, barbeques, parades, carnivals, patriotic political speeches, and the main event... fireworks displays. That is, if they haven't been banned in your particular city already.

I can't help but wonder, however, how many of the flag-waving, fireworks-shooting revelers actually understand exactly what they're celebrating, particularly the younger ones.

My mind keeps going back to the "man on the street" type interviews that I've seen (and read) some time ago, when a reporter would ask random Americans why we celebrate the Fourth of July.

Few young Americans could even answer that it was to celebrate our independence, and when they were asked who we won our independence from, the answers were cringe-inducing.

Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Soviet Union, France, Vietnam and even Canada were some the answers given. I recall only one semi-correct answer being given; Great Britain. The answer is technically England, but I'll accept Great Britain.

It makes me wonder just what exactly our public (or should I say, government) schools are teaching our kids. It sure as hell isn't American history. However, I bet they can name every atrocity that early America has committed against the "Native Americans", and are able to tell you all about the "American concentration camps" during WWII.

When I look back through history, it's amazing to me how far we have fallen from our ideals from the time that we won our independence. I look at New England, particularly my home state of Massachusetts, and it astounds me that the citizens of this region, which was once at the forefront of the fight for independence from a once oppressive, foreign government, are so eager to rush into the arms of governments, both federal and state, that want to oppress them again, this time under the guise of them doing "what's best for them". They have gone from declaring "no taxation without representation" to endorsing tax... after tax... after tax.

How did America, as a whole, get to the point that we've openly embraced a man like Barack Obama who, in his own book (Dreams of My Father), admitted that he sought the companionship of Marxist and Socialist students and professors, whose views are the very antithesis of our founding father's beliefs, because he felt that he "didn't fit in"? You can say all you want that we've all done crazy things in college, but obviously, Obama's friend's ideals have stuck with him.

When you observe the Independence Day revelers this weekend, think of how many of them voted for the "change we can believe in". Wonder how many actually understand what Independence Day is about. If you have kids, ask them if they learned from school what it means. Their answers, or lack of them, may shock and depress you. Or, who knows... maybe they'll surprise you and actually get it right. If you're feeling really brave, ask someone who you know to be an Obama supporter what Independence Day means.

Please understand that I did not write this for the purpose of depressing you or spoiling your holiday fun. I myself will be spending the 4^th with my family (who do understand what the holiday means). My intent here is simply to make you think, and to look at the holiday with a different eye than you may have in the past.

For those of you who understand the significance of Independence Day, enjoy your weekend, and please be especially careful (and patient) on the roads out there after the fireworks are over. There'll be a lot of people out in the street that are just begging to get run over.

And if that fuse on your firecracker looks too short, for heaven's sake, don't light it. I don't want any of you to wind up in the emergency room this year, or worse.

 

President Barack Obama, who was so reluctant to “meddle” in the affairs of Iran during its people’s protest over a fraudulent election, immediately leaped into action after receiving word of a “coup” in Honduras. 

Obama, along with 33 other countries including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, condemned the coup as “illegal” and demanded that the ousted president, Manual Zelaya, to be re-instated into power within 72 hours (of the coup), or face suspension from the Organization of American States, which is based in Washington.

Obama stated that “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections.”

I guess Obama missed the part where Zelaya was trying to amend the Honduras Constitution to influence the next election in his favor.

It should be noted that Zelaya is an extreme leftist, who gained his office by pandering to the “poor and less fortunate”, much the same way Obama did. That could at least partially explain Obama’s solidarity with him (and his reluctance to state any type of solidarity to the protesting Iranians).   

Here is the story behind the coup, as I understand it so far…

Manual Zelaya wanted to run for another term of office as president. His current term ends this year. However, under the terms of the constitution of Honduras, he is ineligible, as presidents are only allowed a single, 4-year term.

Zelaya, wanting to follow the example of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, decided that he wanted to call a convention to amend the constitution for the purpose of allowing himself the chance to serve unlimited terms (this is disputed, as he claims that he intended to step down when his term is over. Then again, he’s not the first politician to claim that). 

He decided to call a referendum (popular, public vote, as opposed to a legislative vote) to arrange the convention. However, the congress has outlawed the referendum, as the president does not have that power.

Not only did the Congress outlaw the referendum, but so did the Supreme Court and the electoral tribunal. When he tried to force the military to distribute the ballots to vote for the referendum (which are believed to have been provided by Hugo Chavez), the military, under the command of armed forces chief General Romeo Vasquez, refused, as they knew that his actions were illegal. Zelaya fired Vasquez, which resulted in top military officials, as well as the defense minister, to resign in protest. Orders by the court to re-instate Vasquez were refused. Zelaya later led a mob of his supporters over to an air force base to collect and distribute the ballots themselves. 

The Honduras military, presumably under orders to protect the constitutional law that Zelaya was breaking, finally arrested him, at home in his pajamas, and exiled him to Costa Rica.  The Congress has since temporarily instated congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as interim (temporary) president, until the next election can be held.

While the Congress has stated that it has voted to accept a letter of resignation from Zelaya, the ousted president claims that he’s never written such a letter.  Note that the Congress says that it votedto accept a letter; it never claimed that it received one.

And that, ladies and gentleman, are the events behind the coup to the best of my knowledge. I won’t claim that it’s 100% accurate, but as I’m doing all this research myself in one day, I wouldn’t be surprised if I missed a few details.

Now we come to the real questions…

Obama, as well as the United Nations, have called this an “illegal, military coup”. 

Is it really?   True, the military arrested Zelaya, but it was under the pretense that he was breaking Constitutional law. How is the arrest illegal? 

Also, the phrase “military coup” implies that the military has taken over the government. The problem is that they didn’t. Once Zelaya was arrested and deported (he is allowed to return to Honduras, but only as an ordinary citizen, which in my view, is pretty generous), the congressional chief replaced him as a temporary president until the next elections could be held this November.

Another question; has the government of Honduras actually changed? Not that I can tell. I’ve seen no reports so far of Roberto Micheletti’s policies being really any different from Zelaya’s or the Congress, so how has the government changed?

This would be like President Obama attempting to pull the same stunt as Zelaya, getting arrested by our military, and being replaced by Joe Biden, with Nancy Pelosi taking Biden’s place.

Now, would our government have really changed? Biden and Pelosi’s policies almost mirror that of Obama’s. Congress is the same. Both the House and the Senate remain the same. They’re still controlled by left-wing Democrats. The Supreme Court justices would remain the same. There’s no real reason for Biden to change anything, after all. What would really be different, other than the fact that we have a president that’s not so suave and charming anymore?  

This isn’t as if John McCain got the military under his command, had them arrest Obama, threw out Biden as well as all the other major offices and replaced them with people loyal to him. That’s a real coup.

Assuming that the information is accurate, personally, I commend the Hondurans for having the backbone to take the actions that they did.  It should be noted that Zaleya’s popularity was only 25% out of 18 regional leaders. His only real support, as mentioned before, came from the “poor and less fortunate”, who bought into the usual leftist promise that he’d “fight for the people”.   

On an end note, any politician that uses the “fight for the people” phrase should raise a red flag with you. These are the ones who promise you everything, yet rarely deliver, and the few times they do, it’s always at the expense of a targeted “hated” class, usually the wealthy. There are a lot of dictators out there, past and present, who were fond of that phrase. It’s too bad they don’t set themselves up for ousting as easily as Zaleya did.

Sources:

Honduran President Ousted by Military: Carin Zissis, 6/28/09

President of Honduras: Wikipedia

Support for Ousted Honduran President Raises Questions About ‘Democratic Leadership’: Stephen Clark, Foxnews.com 06/30/09

Obama’s Swift Stand on Honduras Coup: Associated Press, 06/30/09

Honduras Supreme Court Justice Calls President’s Ouster Legal: Joshua Goodman & Blake Schmidt, Bloomberg Press, 07/01/09

 

A pair of twin “Autobots” has been getting hit hard with a lot of flak lately, and it’s not just coming from those evil “Decepticons”.

Offended movie fans have been criticizing the “gangsta wanna-be” twins (Skids and Mudflap, who disguise themselves as Chevy compact hatchbacks), for portraying negative black racial caricatures. They talk in “street slang”, fight each other constantly and use crude language. One of them even sports a gold tooth. The twins are unable to read; with their excuse being that they’re too busy “kickin’ butt”.   Actually, they don’t use the word “butt”… I’m not allowed to use that other word here, but you get the idea. 

Michael Bay, the director of the movie “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”, insists that the twins were meant as comic relief, and that the twin’s mannerisms actually came from the voice actors, one of whom is black. 

Reno Wilson, the black voice actor behind “Mudflap”, stated that he “never imagined that the twins would be considered as racial caricatures”.   When he accepted the role, he was told that the twins had downloaded their information about human culture from the web, and that they had focused on the “gangsta rap” culture.   Therefore, that’s how they turned out. Reno took Mudflap’s personality in that direction, and his fellow voice actor, Tom Kenny (who is white, and voices “Skids”), followed his lead.

“If he (Mudflap) had downloaded country music, he would have come out like that” said Reno.

Don’t try convincing Tasha Robinson, associate editor of “The Onion” of that, however.

“They only exist to talk in bad ebonics, beat each other up, and talk about how stupid each other is (sic)”.  

Ms. Robinson also complained that the twins do not play a major part in the story, and “disappear” when the action heats up in the end.

That’s like going to a restaurant, complaining that the food is horrible, and then whining that the portions are too small.

At any rate, I disagree. The twins, despite their shenanigans, actually do a good job of protecting their human charges. One of them even plays a role in heavily damaging a huge Decepticon near the end of the movie (named “Devastator”, which is a combination of several evil “Constructicon” robots that fuse together to form one monster robot), which resulted in saving the lives of his brother and human charges.   I won’t say how, in order to prevent more of a spoiler than I may have given already, but I just wanted to point out that the twins were more than just “bad ebonics”. 

On a sidenote, I suspect that those blacks (as well as white, liberal apologists) who were offended by the twins may have also been somewhat negatively influenced by the movie’s pro-military, pro-America, and, worst of all (for them), anti-Obama undercurrent, even going out of its way to say his name during a CNN newscast, just to make sure that the audience knew who the president running the show was. At one point, the camera goes out of its way to get a shot of a war room soldier sporting a “McCain” name tag on his uniform answering a phone (you’ll have to watch for it. If you blink, you’ll miss it).   

It probably didn’t help much when an Obama lackey named “Galloway”, who keeps insisting to the soldiers that they must, by direct order of the president, observe a policy of “diplomacy, negotiation and sound military strategy” in order to deal with the aggressive Decepticons.  The annoyed soldiers finally get rid of him in a (in my opinion) hilarious manner. I’m going to assume that Michael Bay is not an “Obamamaniac”.

Getting back to the “gangsta twins”, let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that Michael Bay deliberately went out of his way to create this negative caricature of blacks with the twins. Let me ask you this… who could he have possibly gotten the idea from? 

Who was it that embraced the hip-hop and “gangsta” rap style (and the gold teeth, crude language, and tendency for violent behavior that came with it)?  

Who was it that made it a point to be proud of being “street smart”, and not “book smart”, up to the point of belittling those of their race who acted intelligent, even accusing them of “acting white”?

I bet you thought I was going to place all the blame on the blacks. I’m going to surprise you and say that this isn’t actually a “black” thing. Being black has absolutely nothing to do with embracing the “gangsta” lifestyle. It’s more of a cultural thing. It just so happens that the majority of the people in the public eye who embrace this particular culture are blacks, though it should be noted that average American blacks do not approve of this type of culture, so I suspect that they cringe and inadvertently lash out whenever they see caricatures of this type, pretty much the way I cringe and mumble under my breath when I see some shaven-headed, tattooed, white kid with facial piercings acting like he’s the next Eminem. 

Who knows? Maybe for his next Transformers film, Michael Bay will have a couple of redneck Decepticons shooting beer cans off the top of each other’s heads… and one aims a bit too low.   That should bring a few laughs, by blacks and whites.

Sources:

Are ‘Transformers’ Robots Racist?: Associated Press, 06/26/09

 

God was spotted in France today. It's true; Jacques Boudon says so.

Mr. Boudon, the owner of the "La Fountaine de Mars" bistro, was reportedly "over the moon" when his establishment was visited by the Obamas and Sarkozys. He was especially pleased that the Obamas had stayed so long after they had finished their meal.

"And I think they were happy because they stayed over three-quarters of an hour after dining".

Hold on, here comes the best part...

"I saw God before me", he continued to gush, "because I saw this smile that a million people have seen around the world. I saw her (Michelle) radiant. It's idiotic, but it's like that."

You're right, Jacque... that is idiotic.

While the Obamas were dining, some Parisians went as far as hanging a hand-made sign outside the apartment building nearby that said "We love you, Obama".

It's no secret that the Obamas are among the few Americans that are wildly popular in France, one that even rivals that of Jerry Lewis and Michael Moore. After all, why not? Obama and France have almost the exact same political views of how a country should be run.

As stated in an article by the Associated Press, the French are "confirmed fans of the Obamas, whose politics and eloquent style confirm their ideal vision of the United States".

Now, if that statement doesn't raise red warning flags back home, I don't know what will.

This is, of course, a standard tactic for a politician. Plenty of politicians will say exactly what they believe that their target audience wants to hear, but Obama is an absolute master at it. During his last "apology for America tour", he played up to the European's dislike and distrust of America by pointing out America's failure to recognize Europe's "great contributions" due to our "arrogance".

He used the same tactics in South America, and again during his last tour of the Middle East, where he showered his Muslim audience with praises and Koran verses, with just a sprinkle of criticism to make sure it was "balanced out". The man knows his audience.

If I had a hat, I'd take it off to him.

I've mentioned this next little tidbit of knowledge before in an earlier blog, but it bears repeating...

During the last elections, polls were taken across Europe. The results of the polls showed that the majority of Europeans wanted to see the United States weaken in power and influence in world affairs. The same Europeans also stated that if they were allowed to vote in our elections, they would vote for Barack Obama.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

I wonder how many Europeans speak Chinese? Just wondering.

Sources:

France Gets Its Obama Moment Elaine Ganley and Jenny Barchfield, AP. 7/7/09

 

Well, tomorrow is “Cinco de Mayo”, or as translated from Spanish, “Fifth of May”.   What’s so special about the fifth of May, you ask? Let me give you a brief history lesson.

Way back in 1861, Mexico tried to back out of interest payments on debts that it owed France. Well, that didn’t make France very happy, so they decided to collect on their debts and invade Mexico. 

Now, believe it or not, France once had the most powerful military in the world. They were actually pretty hard core in those days. You just did not mess with the French army if you knew what was good for you, which is probably why we asked them for their help in the Revolutionary War.    

Anyway, back on point. At first, the French didn’t have too much trouble with the Mexican army. To put it bluntly, they were wiping the floor with them. However, on May 5^th, 1862 (“Cinco de Mayo”… ta-da!), in the city of Puebla, they ran into a Mexican army led by a general named Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín.  Long story short, General Seguín kicked the much larger French army out of Pueblo. 

Now, here’s the part that I bet most of you Cinco de Mayo revelers out there don’t know… that battle was the only major victory the Mexicans had over the French. Just a year later, the French had completely taken over Mexico.    It was only after the United States persuaded France to leave, which it did by 1867, that Mexico regained its independence (which, by the way, is frequently mistaken to be Cinco de Mayo itself). 

Here’s the kicker to this holiday; more people in the United States celebrate it than the general populace of Mexico do, with perhaps the exception of Puebla.   In fact, it’s a pretty obscure holiday for the most part down there, kind of like D-Day is here. In the States, however, it’s a different story. You can’t go anywhere without seeing references to the holiday in stores and restaurants. I constantly hear promotions for the holiday on the radio at work. 

So, why is the holiday so special up here? I can understand Mexican nationals celebrating it to a degree. It is a historical event for them, after all, and I don’t expect them to just discard it once they move to the United States, but what’s with all the gringos running around with the ridiculously oversized sombreros on their heads and a bottle of beer in their hands, partying to all hours of the night?   Do they even understand what the holiday is about? I suspect that Cinco de Mayo is seen in the same light as Mardi Gras. Few people understand the history or purpose of Mardi Gras, but just see it as another excuse to party, and maybe overturn a car or two.   At least, until the stampede of police horses come through. Nothing says “the party’s over” like a wooden shampoo to the head. 

Some have argued that Cinco de Mayo has transmuted into a holiday that celebrates Latino culture, kind of like St. Patrick’s Day celebrates Irish culture. St. Patrick, however, was responsible for converting almost the entire nation of Ireland from Paganism to Catholicism, and America, particularly New England, has a large population of Irish descent and heritage, so I can understand why he would be celebrated so widely here.    I just don’t get how one single battle could have morphed into a celebration of Latino culture and pride, especially when so many people celebrating have no Latino in them.   Besides, I wouldn’t exactly call having only one major victory in a war something to be proud of, especially when another country has to bail you out in the end.  

Oh well, like I said earlier, I guess it’s just another excuse for gringos out there to party.   Happy Cinco de Mayo… and oh, watch yourselves on the highways tomorrow.   Lot of liquor stores out there are going to be making some money tomorrow, if you know what I mean.

Sources:

Cinco de Mayo: Wikipedia

North Korea's New Bargaining Chips 

Laura Ling and Euna Lee may be wondering if our sitting president remembers who they are.

Ling and Lee, in case you haven’t heard, are two U.S. journalists who were captured by the isolated nation of North Korea a little over two weeks ago.  The two women, who work for San Francisco-based “Current TV” founded by former Vice-President Al Gore, were conducting interviews with North Korean refugees trying to rebuild their lives in China. Though they were repeatedly warned by their South Korean guide to stay away from the long, and in some places, unmarked border, it is believed that they were captured by border guards and hauled into North Korea, though it is not entirely clear if they had strayed on North Korea’s side as the border guards claim, or if were abducted on the Chinese side of the border.   Personally, I wouldn’t put it past the North Koreans to pull a stunt like this. They have abducted people outside their borders before.

The North Koreans have since announced that the women will go on trial on spying charges. If convicted (and it’s highly unlikely that they’ll get a fair trial), they could face 5 to 10 years in a labor camp.   For the time being, the North Koreans have stated that the women are being detained in a “guest villa”, and have scoffed at suggestions that they have been mistreated, claiming that “We are not Guantanamo”. 

I would hope not. Holding journalists hostage for reporting stories that you don’t like is a lot different from holding terrorist suspects plotting to destroy your nation.   Treatment naturally should be better.

Yes, hostages are exactly what they are, not prisoners of war. It’s likely that North Korea will use the women as bargaining chips to receive further concessions from the U.S. and its allies. 

What puzzles me, however, is that our sitting president, Barack Obama, has never stated what he plans to do about the journalists. Try as I might, I was unable to find even one story in which he directly addresses the hostages in any article related to the subject as of this writing.   The closest I could find was him addressing North Korea’s so-called “satellite launch”, and that’s long since passed.   That’s not to say that I know for certain that he hasn’t, I just haven’t been able to find a story where he does. What is his position on this? What are his plans on freeing the journalists, if he even has one? 

Now, I know that a few conservatives out there, upon learning that the journalists worked for the radical, left-wing, global-warming apocalypse predicting Al Gore, are tempted to write off the journalists as just two more idiots who got what they had coming to them for being stupid enough to put themselves into this position.  Think about this, though; what if the journalists had been successful on their assignment, and had brought their interviews back to the states, exposing what really goes on in North Korea as told by the refugees who lived there? North Korea is an extremely isolated nation… very little, news or otherwise, goes in or out of its borders. Would they be hailed as heroes, or would they still be considered just a couple of idiots? In all likelihood, we would be devouring their tales of “courage, bravery and close calls” in every newspaper and magazine in print, as well as talking about the “never before seen” photos and videos of North Korean life.

Barack Obama needs to put his “Apology for America” tour on hold and start telling us what he plans to do about the hostages.  There are no American hostages in Europe or South America, so perhaps he should think about a trip to North Korea.   He said himself during the elections that he was willing to sit down and negotiate without preconditions with those who didn’t like us … so start negotiating. 

Who knows, maybe all it will take is a handshake, a hand on the shoulder, and saying “Anyong haseyo”. Hugo Chavez gave him a book for such a greeting. Maybe Kim Jong-Il will give him the hostages.   He could even throw in a “we’re sorry we’re so arrogant” apology. Maybe even bow before him. Whatever works.

All kidding aside, it’s time for these women to come home.   Yes, they may be liberal pain-in-the-necks, but they’re still our pain-in-the-necks.   No American journalist deserves to be sentenced to slave labor in a North Korean prison camp for the next 10 years, or be treated as bargaining chips, no matter what we feel they represent. 

Now, President Obama… what are you going to do about it?

Sources:

US Journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee to be Tried in North Korea: AP April 24th, 2009

North Korea to Try Two US Journalists for 'Hostile' Acts: AP April 24th, 2009

Seized US Journalists Become 'Hostages' in N. Korea Crisis: Tim Johnson, McClatchy Newspapers, April 2, 2009

Lisa Ling's Sister Arrested in North Korea: Michael Y Park, People.com, March 23rd, 2009

Is Former President Bush a "Shield" For Obama?   

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that former President Bush seems to have a new part-time job as Obama’s shield?

It seems that every time President Obama’s policies start to face real criticism, the administration and their supporters hold President Bush in front of them in an attempt to deflect attention away from them.   The first time was at the height of the criticism of his handling of the economic crisis, when the markets continued to plunge despite Obama’s assurances that his “stimulus” plans would speed America back to recovery. This was, of course, after his first apocalyptic, gloom and doom speech, where the words “crisis” and “catastrophe” where spoken repeatedly. 

Then, on March 2, 2009, the first group of classified memos was released.   The public’s attention was diverted from the economic crisis, to the more controversial (and scandalous) topic of the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib as well as the destruction of the taped sessions by the CIA. While the economic crisis affects everyone, torture and conspiracy stories are always a headline grabber.   The result? Less attention on Obama and the failing economy, more attention on the former Bush administration’s controversial policies. The majority of the public’s attention was successfully diverted. Mission accomplished.

It didn’t last, however. A few days later, “tea parties” that were being held across the nation, which were being held as a result of the public’s anger over massive government spending, taxes, and the direction we were heading, were beginning to receive more attention from the media, despite the lackluster coverage at the beginning. This came to a head on April 15, 2009, when nationwide “tax day” tea parties and FairTax rallies were held were just starting to receive major media coverage. Granted, most of the coverage had a negative slant, including supposedly “unbiased” television reporters combatively arguing with tea party attendees, as well as liberal celebrities calling the supporters racists, anti-government, “teabagging” (a term considered sexually obscene) rednecks, but it was still coverage.  Once again, the focus was back on public anger over the economy and government spending. 

Then, out of the blue, the next batch of secret memos was released by the Obama administration.  Not only do they supposedly give in detail the methods used to “torture” the terrorist suspects, but the ACLU has promised juicy photographs of the prisoner interrogations to follow. To top it off, Obama has released his own memos to the general public detailing specific, "more humane" interrogation methods that he will authorize the CIA to use on terror suspects. Needless to say, our enemies will be well prepared to counter those techniques should they be captured by us in the future. 

Once again, sensationalism concerning the fate of a few terror suspects overseas trumps the everyday economic reality of every American, and with the exception of a few conservative media outlets, the news of the tea party movement and their agenda has evaporated.  The public’s attention has once again been diverted to the former Bush administration. Mission accomplished.  

It’s a clever move by the Obama administration.  The release of the memos and promised photos are attention grabbing enough to force the conservative media to divert its attention to the outrageousness of the memos, rather than spending time discussing the troubled economy and their own suggestions on how to improve it. Once again, the Obama administration is free to present its own “solutions” (which usually involve borrowing and spending more money from communist China and appeasing our enemies) to Americans with the Bush administration failures once again fresh on their minds.

In my previous column concerning the first set of memos being released, I said that the focus shouldn’t be so much as what was on the tapes, or even how accurate they were, but why they were being released in the first place.   The simple answer is that Obama is using Bush as a shield.   While the public is distracted by a trip through bad memory lane, it allows Obama to present his own agendas with little challenge. 

Remember this when those controversial photos are published. Think of how many people those photos affect, as opposed to how many Americans are affected by an economy that actually has real meaning for all of us. Which of these issues, upon being solved, will actually benefit you the most; the sensationalism of the Abu Ghraib scandal, or the economic crisis?  The one that you can pat yourself on the back and say "justice for terror suspects", or the one that you can say "the jobless rate is down, the pay is going up"?

I normally could care less about beauty pageants. Watching a bunch of superficially attractive women that the average Joe (like me) would never have a chance with, parading on the stage and giving their ideas for world peace is not my idea of must-see TV.

But what's a beauty pageant without a little controversy? This time, it has nothing to do with a mother sabotaging her daughter's competition, nor is it a contestant giving a judge another bizarre, head scratching answer. This answer was actually, to the horror of the judge, honest.

Perez Hilton, an openly gay celebrity blogger, was one of the judges of pageant. He asked one of the finalists, Carrie Prejean (Miss California), the following question in the final segment:

"Vermont recently became the 4^th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suite, why or why not?"

Carrie Prejean's answer:

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that, you can choose same-sex or opposite marriage (Carrie... just for future reference, it's called heterosexual marriage). And, you know what? In my country, in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman (It's like that in my country too, Carrie. Sorry, I like poking fun at beauty contestants.). No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised, and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman."

Ok, I never claimed it was an eloquent response.

The audience gave a mixed reaction to the answer. Miss Prejean won first runner up in the pageant. Here's where it starts to get ugly... it's rumored that Miss Prejean's answer was a little "too honest" for the judges and it is believed that it may have cost her the pageant. I've heard no real proof of this, and to me, this is just speculation at this point.

Perez Hilton later did a rather flamboyant video blog on YouTube (warning: contains some crass language) that, in a nutshell, lambasted Miss Prejean for not being "politically correct" and giving "the worst answer" in pageant history. In a later interview on the "Today" show, Hilton stated that Miss Prejean should have "left her politics and her religion out, because Miss USA represents all Americans."

First of all, Mr. Hilton, I don't consider Miss USA to be my representative. I could care less who she is, or what she does. The only winner of the pageant I can actually name from memory is Vanessa Williams, and that's only due to the notoriety she gained from the scandal that followed the pageant, though she isn't exactly suffering from that anymore.

Second, if Mr. Hilton really thinks that Miss Prejean should have "left her politics and religion out", then why in the hell did he ask such a politically and religiously loaded question if he wasn't ready for an answer he disagreed with?

Is this what it comes down to now, a contestant not being allowed to give an honest answer if they think that it won't mesh with the judge's belief system? This isn't just from a conservative viewpoint. Let's look at the question from a different angle. What if an openly conservative and religious judge (not likely in a beauty pageant, I know, but play along with me here) asked a liberal contestant a similar question this way?

"The state of California has recently passed an amendment that overturns gay marriage. Should other states follow suite? Why, or why not?"

Should the liberal contestant, who in this case disagrees with the new amendment, be allowed to answer honestly, or should she cater to the beliefs of the judge to increase her chances of winning a contest? Should she be the object of a profanity laced rant by the conservative judge on YouTube because of her honest answer?

I can tell you with a straight face that, despite me being a conservative, I would side with the contestant over the judge in this case. No one, conservative or liberal alike, deserved the kind of treatment that Miss Prejean received from Mr. Hilton.

I should point out that during an interview on Sean Hannity's radio program this evening, she has stated that she even received emails from gay and lesbian groups apologizing for the behavior of Perez Hilton.

On an interview with Larry King, Perez has stated that he hopes that he'll be invited for the pageant next year. I don't see that happening. He also stated his invitation to Miss Prejean to go "out for a cup of coffee." I don't see that happening either.

Oh, and the winner of the Miss USA pageant? Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton. As if anyone will remember now. Sometimes, people do remember who came in second, over who came in first.

Sources:

Hilton, Miss California Take Sides on "Today"The Associated Press

The Sean Hannity Show: April 22, 2009

YouTube: Answer Why Miss USA Didn't Win Miss USA (Perez Hilton)

YouTube: Larry King Live Interview

Leave it to pirates to swear revenge for the deaths of their comrades while commiting piracy.

Excuse me, Mr. Pirates, but need I remind you of WHY three of your buddies' heads got blown into a fine mist? It just so happens that people don't like it when you fire rockets at their ships, climb aboard them (without permission, no less), hold their crews at gunpoint, then demand ransom from their respective companies. This is especially true with American ships, as you have learned the hard way. Now you want revenge for your comrades' deaths while they doing things that they really shouldn't have been doing to begin with. Pirates... go figure.

However, the pirates have stepped up their game. Not only did they seize at least four more ships after the rescue, they have attempted to seize another U.S. vessel, the Liberty Sun as well. They failed, with the crew of the Liberty Sun managing to shake their pursuers, and the pirates leaving empty handed (and minus a few rockets that apparently had little effect).

This didn't seem to dampen the pirates' determination, though. In a recent phone interview, one pirate, Omar Dahir Idle, boasted that "Our latest hijackings are to show that no one can deter us from protecting our waters from the enemy because we believe in dying for our land".

Another pirate, identified only as "Ismail", also vowed by phone that "We will seek out the Americans, and if we capture them, we will slaughter them. We will target their ships, because we know their flags. Last night, an American-flagged ship escaped us by a whisker. We have showered them with rocket-propelled grenades."

First, I'd like to point out to "Ismail" that it doesn't matter whether they escaped by "a whisker", or by a mile... they still escaped. You screwed up.

Second, I'd like to ask why we are interviewing these pirates, instead of capturing and interrogating them for information.

Third, I'd like for my readers to take the pirates' quotes under careful consideration. Note that they plainly stated that they're no longer interested in holding Americans for ransom. They just want to capture and "slaughter" them. So, if they're not capturing the crews for ransom, that really doesn't make them pirates anymore, does it?

It makes them terrorists. That is what terrorists do, kill people for the express purpose of causing terror and uncertainy, usually out of a religous cause or political purposes. Not "criminals", as our relatively inexperienced Secretary of State Clinton likes to call them... terrorists.

However, the pirates' boastings may backfire against them. If you were an American sailor, and you knew for certain that these pirates weren't even going to bother holding you for ransom but just execute you once you were captured, would you have any incentive to surrender? More than likely, you'd fight to the last breath, by whatever means possible, rather than just sit back and wait for them to slit your throat. At least, that's what most sane Americans would do.

I say we American sailors to fight back with something besides fire hoses. It's time to start supplying our ships with weapons, in one of two ways: Either arm the sailors themselves, and train them how to use these weapons, or hire armed, trained professionals to sail with them.

I prefer the second option. I understand that Blackwater could use some work now. They would be perfect for this. A great chance for some action, and no "innoccent civillians" to worry about, just bad guys trying to storm a ship.

We could also take a page from the Russian's playbook.

Hire a large ship, and staff it with a skeleton crew, with lots of armed professionals. Take the ship out to sea, and sail it in pirate infested waters. Make sure it's flying the American flag. Call it a Trojan Horse if you will. Sooner or later, those pirates are going to smell blood and attempt to take over the ship. Have the crew lock themselves in their rooms, and let the mercenaries hide in wait. Don't put up a fight; let the pirates climb aboard. When the pirates start sniffing around for Americans to slaughter, release the mercs and watch the fun. Kill every last pirate, spare no one. Stuff their bodies into trash bags (make sure the bags have American flag decals on them. I recommend those new Hefty "flex" bags.), and drop the bodies off onto the nearest Somali beach. If that doesn't make a statement of what will happen to them when they think about targeting another American ship, I don't know what will.

If this sounds cruel and unethical, you'll get no arguement from me. Keep in mind that these pirates vowed to slaughter our sailors if they captured them. Besides, they said it themselves... they believe in dying for their land. I say we oblige them.

Those who show no mercy, deserve no mercy themselves.

Sources:

Another US Cargo Ship Escapes Somali Pirate Attack

French Nab 11 Pirates as Threats Mount on US Ships

 

The television program "20/20" (hosted by Diane Sawer and David Muir) aired a documentary last night titled "If I Only Had a Gun". The title was used in reference to those who believe that they would be able to protect themselves during a violent confrontation if they are armed with a firearm. I had hoped that this program would highlight both the benefits and responsibility of owning and using a firearm, as well as the expected stories of the consequences of what happens if you don't practice good sense.

I was disappointed. Instead, the program concentrated entirely on the dogma that guns should only be in the hands of the police. While Diane Sawyer stated at the beginning that this program was not about whether ordinary citizens should or should not have the right to own or carry a handgun, she certainly gave the impression that "the amateurs" had no business carrying them.

The program (which currently can be viewed in segments on the ABC site ) began with a security camera video of a convenience store clerk defending himself against two intruders in a shootout. Diane asks "Fourteen shots are fired. Do you know who is hit, who is not, and why?" Later in the segment, that same video is shown again. Diane reveals that "even though the store clerk and the intruder fired fourteen shots, not one of their shots even came close (to hitting each other), even at this range."

Here is what Diane missed. The clerk won that shootout, even though he missed his targets. Why? The simple reason is this; the intruders were so busy trying to avoid the clerk's gunfire, that they were unable to get a clear shot at the clerk themselves. That gun saved the clerk's life. I challenge anyone to prove to me that the intruder's bullets wouldn't have found their mark much more easily if it hadn't been for the clerk shooting back. For those of you who believe that the clerk could have saved his life if he had just done exactly what the intruders had told him too, there is no guarantee that they wouldn't have shot him anyway. It's happened before, there's no reason it couldn't happen again.

The program then features six students, with their experiences with firearms ranging from none at all, to a hundred hours on the gun range, unwittingly taking part in an experiment (set up by ABC News with help from the Bethlehem Police Department). Believing they are taking a free gun training course, the students first are given some target practice with a real glock handgun (the bullets are specially designed paint rounds). Diane points out during this segment that "you should know that our basic course is already more hands-on training than almost half the states in the country are required to carry a concealed weapon."

The armed students, one at a time, are taken into a lecture hall to participate in a class on protective gear. Their guns were hidden under their large, uniform sweatshirts. What the students don't know is that they are surrounded not by other students, but by undercover police and ABC News crew members pretending to be taking the lecture with them. Once the class dons their protective helmets as part of the course, a gunman unexpectedly (for the armed student) walks through the door, shoots the instructor of the class, and begins shooting at random. Sometimes its only one shooter, sometimes two walk in at the same time. One time, there was already a shooter in the class, masquerading as a student, who pulled out his own weapon and opened fire on the other "students" after the second shooter walked through the door.

The armed student's reactions were dismal. Some fired back, but either did what would have been minor damage to the intruder, if they hit him at all, or missed him entirely. One student got his gun caught in his oversized sweatshirt and couldn't draw the gun properly. A couple of them froze up and either remained seated, or hid behind his seat. All the students got shot with "lethal" hits, some execution style.

One of the instructors, during his interview after the experiment, explained that the student's reactions were not unusual, that normal citizens tended to "freeze up" and their reactions slowed down during a crisis, even those who have had hours of experience with guns and believed that they would do well. Diane Sawyer points out that the police have to train for hundreds of hours to improve their reaction times, and need to constantly train under stress conditions to competently handle a confrontation. They even quoted one of the students near the end of the segment, just to nail the point home... "I really don't think there was any benefit of me having a gun as opposed to not having it. If anything, it left me more susceptible to being shot." Translation: what chance do we amateurs have? Leave the gun fighting to the police.

There are some flaws in this experiment, however. The first one being that most of the people in the room, save the armed students, were trained police officers who already knew what was going to happen, and as they were instructed, hid or randomly scurried around the room. It was guaranteed that none of those in on the experiment would be packing a gun.

The second flaw is that the "intruder" already knew for certain that one of the students in the lecture hall had a gun. You might have noticed in the video clips that all of the students were seated in the same area during the experiment as well, so it's conceivable that the instructors knew where the armed students were seated ahead of time.

The third flaw is assuming that all armed intruders are trained professionals who know what they're doing. Very few shooters are such people. They may have a plan, true, but they rarely know the exact circumstances that they're getting into, nor are they necessarily crack shots. The intruders trying to rob the convenience store in the beginning surveilance video come to mind. I've also never heard of intruders sophisticated enough to plant a gunman in a room ahead of time to join his partner later after he bursts through the door. While not impossible, it's unlikely.

The program then moves on to the dangers of children with guns. Video clip after video clip is shown of young toddlers playing with real (unloaded) guns. The guns had been placed among their toys for them to find, and the parents, watching the experiment, would have their reactions taped.

Now, I'm just going to mention that any parent who would actually put real guns in with their kid's toys deserve to go to jail, and I doubt that there are many parents out there lacking that much common sense. True, they may not hide their guns as cleverly as they think they do (as illustrated by one father's 10-year old daughter on the program walking right up to the loaded, hidden firearm in her father's dresser), but I doubt they'd hide one in the toy box. To me, this experiment was focused more on drama than any actual lessons being learned (unless it was to show just how nosy kids were when they're parents aren't around).

The program then moved on to an experiment with teenagers, and what they would do if they found a loaded firearm. The intent was to see how many of them would report the guns to the owner (they were moving furniture into a van, with the guns hidden in a dresser drawer. The guns were loaded, but not functional). In short, only three students even thought of reporting the guns, the rest of them opting to observe or play with them, a couple of them even looking right down the barrel to see if it was loaded. I wonder how many of these teens had any kind of gun safety training in their lives prior to the incident? I did note with interest, however, one of the teenagers trying to discourage the others from picking up the guns, mentioning that he had taken gun safety courses, and that "you're not supposed to be doing that." Diane Sawyer chose to ignore this small detail.

Inevitably, the program moved on to the "heartbreaker" stories of young teens accidentally killing their friends with guns. Some 911 tapes were played, and interviews of the teens responsible were given. Long story short, the guilt racked teens were interviewed by the sympathetic looking David Muir. The last teen interviewed, named Mike, who was in a marching band (picked to march at Obama's inauguration) formed under the treatment center for trouble teens that he was placed in after accidently killing his friend when he was 11, went like this:

David Muir: I have a picture of you, looking at the president (Obama)...

Mike: Yeah, that was, was a good day.

David Muir: Is there something that you hope, the president will do about guns and children in America?

Mike: Keep them away from them, like, lock them all up.

David Muir: And how do we do that?

Mike: Make sure that everyone that owns a gun in the country, somehow, someway, to get a lock for their guns so that everyone's safe.

David Muir: To lock them away...

Mike: Mm hm, that's what I'd do if I was president.


And on that note, the segment ended.

Now, I can completely understand the reasoning behind using safety locks on your guns if you have children in the house. No sane parent wants to see their child hurt or killed by the household firearm. The problem is, armed intruders aren't going to wait for you to unlock your gun from the safe, unlock the safety lock on the gun, unlock the ammunition for the gun from a separate vault (as it has been recommended in other places), fumble with the ammo, then shoot, all this being done in the dark and possibly being woken out of a dead sleep. Chances are, the intruders are going to already have the gun out, cocked and loaded, ready for action when they come in.

So what is the solution for gun owners with children in the house? Where is the happy medium? I'll admit that this is a tricky problem to solve. Speaking for myself, this isn't an issue, as I'm single, have no children and I live alone. Having government mandated trigger locks, however, will do nothing but hinder my ability to defend myself. While I do have at least a partial idea to solve this problem, I am saving it for a follow-up article. I wonder, though, if the purpose behind the mandatory trigger locks and vault rules is to create such a hassle of owning a gun, that would-be purchasers wouldn't bother to buy one in the first place, thus "reducing the amount of guns in the homes".

Speaking of purchasing guns, we'll move on to another segment of the program (I'm skipping 10-year old Damon Weaver's story for now, that's an entire article in itself) that featured a man by the name of Omar Samaha, who lost his sister Reema in the shooting spree at Virginia Tech two years ago. Omar was given $5,000 dollars cash by ABC to enter a gun show and purchase as many guns as he could in one hour. The purpose of the experiment was to test to see if any questions or background checks would be given to him prior to purchasing the weapons. Omar has been working to help close the "gun show loophole", which allows private gun dealers who only occasionally sell firearms (such as weekend gun shows) and do not usually require thorough background checks. The first gun he purchased was a glock handgun, and as David Muir claims, one of the same types used by Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui. He was sold the gun by an individual before he even walked into the store, no background checks, no ID, no questions asked. This helped re-enforce Omar's belief that criminals such as Cho Seung-Hui obtain their firearms through gun shows like these.

Here's the problem with this belief; the Virginia Tech shooter didn't buy either of his guns at a gun show, but one from an out of state dealer, the other from a pawn shop across the street from the campus. Both purchases were legal. He passed the background check, because he was never involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Therefore, his evaluation and history of mental illness never showed up in his record.

All in all, Omar walked out with 10 weapons, ranging from pistols, to shotguns, to semi-automatic assault weapons.

David Muir: What do you think people don't realize about the ease in which you just bought ten guns?


Omar Samaha: That anybody can do it, and it's for real. It's that easy.

Well, I suppose if I was just handed $5,000, I could go and buy ten guns easily too. To tell the truth, though, I'd rather use the money to pay off my medical bills.

Seriously, though, how many gun show attendees have that much cash in hand to just buy whatever guns they wanted? Even if they could, how many people would actually want to spend that much at one time on guns? I'd be interested in seeing the numbers.

David Muir claims that "according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, says that in their investigation, private sellers at gun shows are a major source of crime guns."

This is a bald-faced lie. According to the NRA, a Bureau of Justice Statistics study back in 2001 found that based on interviews of over 18,000 inmates, less than 1% of them bought their firearms from a gun show. In a more recent study by the FBI in 2006, 97% of the guns they recovered from criminals were obtained through illegal means. I'd sure like to know how the ATF conducted their investigation.

Some people may try to point out that two of the guns used by the Columbine High shooters were purchased at a gun show, but it should be pointed out that the shooters themselves did not buy the weapons, but rather received them from a third party (Robyn Anderson), who purchased the weapons for them. This is an illegal practice known as "straw purchasing". They purchased another weapon from a pizza shop employee, who knew they were too young to buy the weapon, but sold it to them anyway. This, needless to say, is also illegal.

I also suspect that one of the reasons why Omar didn't have much trouble buying the guns was because of his appearance and demeanor. Omar is a nice looking, clean cut, polite kid. It's possible that he didn't stir up any suspicions from the dealers, who may not have sold to him if they suspected ill intentions. It is also ridiculous that anyone buying a firearm from these shows should automatically be suspected as a criminal. I could go on to explain my views about the "gun show loophole", but again, that's another article in itself.

Rather than 20/20 just discouraging ordinary citizens from owning a gun, wouldn't it have made more sense in interviewing people who could give instruction on how they could use one properly? What if those firearms instructors in that first experiment had instructed the students on how to quickly draw the firearm under those oversized, bulky sweatshirts, or how to make themselves more difficult to hit, like staying on the move or taking cover? What if they had warned them about the dangers of "tunnel vision", as expressed in the program, or about being aware of not only potential threats around them, but innocent bystanders that could be hurt in a gunfire exchange? How about providing information on where gun owners could take such classes where they could practice in "stress tests"? None of these were suggested in the program.

Final suggestion... the next time 20/20 wants to do a documentary like this, get a more balanced perception. Have it covered by one liberal and one conservative. Specifically, get someone like John Stossel on this story to counter the likes of Diane Sawyer or David Muir. Where the heck was Stossel on this anyway? ABC really dropped the ball on this one.

Do something more than just suggesting we "run, hide and play dead" when the shooting starts. Don't just say that using your cell phone to call 911 is really the most powerful tool you have to counter a shooting. Calling 911 does not stop the intruder from shooting; it just summons the police so that they can come take pictures of your corpse when it's all over.

Sources
20/20 (ABC News)  "If I Only Had a Gun"

CNN.com "Campus Killer's Purchases Apparently Within Gun Laws"

NRA-ILA  "Gun Shows: The Gun Show Myth"

Violence Policy Center  "Where'd They Get Their Guns?"

 

Debbie Ellis-Dooley, one of the organizers of the Atlanta Tea Party, received quite the grilling from Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz this morning.   

Ms. Ellis-Dooley had called “The Neal Boortz Show” in an attempt to explain to the host what the “Atlanta Tea Party” was about. Mr. Boortz, who had already been ranting about the tea parties just moments prior, was immediately combative from the beginning, demanding Ms. Dooley to explain what exactly they were trying to accomplish with the event. 

Unfortunately, the best answer Ms. Dooley had for Mr. Boortz at the time was something along the lines of “to protest against taxes and the government stimulus (not exact words, but I can only write notes so fast on a scrap of paper.)”.  

Wrong answer. This is exactly the kind of vague response that drives Boortz crazy, and he immediately pressed his attack against Ms. Dooley, pointing out that (in his view) she did not offer any of her own proposals to seriously address the problems besides throwing teabags on the ground (I don’t know if this is actually what they did, I didn’t witness any of this at the Orlando Tea Party, which I attended.), and that they didn’t really give the politicians any tough questions that they are actually forced to respond to, such as questions about the FairTax.

When Ms. Dooley attempted to explain that there would be FairTax representatives at the rally, Boortz fired back that since it wasn’t an actual FairTax rally, no one would really care, particularly not the politicians they were trying to reach.  He also pointed out that his cause for the FairTax had much more purpose, was much better organized, and more attention grabbing than the “tea parties.”

Something I should point out… back in May 15^th of 2007, there was a huge FairTax rally that took place in Columbus, Georgia. Roughly 9000 people attended the rally, which was hosted by Neal Boortz himself (with staff members Royal Marshall and Belinda Skeleton, who had bravely tried to defend Ms. Dooley and the tea parties after the call), and featured several famous guest speakers, including Herman Cain, Sean Hannity, Clark Howard, John Linder and Mike Huckabee. While the event was a huge success with the attendees, it suffered the same fate as most of the tea parties across the nation did; it received scant attention from the media, who instead found a mere handful of anti-war protestors across the street more “newsworthy”. Few people even know that the rally happened.

It just goes to show you that it doesn’t matter how well your cause is organized, how purposeful it is, or how well executed… if the media doesn’t want to cover it, it’s not going to cover it.

While Ms. Dooley should probably have prepared herself better against Boortz prior to calling his show, I did feel a lot of sympathy for her, as Boortz can be extremely intimidating to argue against, especially if he’s in a bad mood. Boortz can actually be very accommodating, insightful and even chatty when he’s in a good mood, even if you’re calling to disagree with him, but if he’s in a bad mood, you’d best have your flame retardant suit on. I should note, though, that it’s these calls that usually make the show fun to listen too.

In the past, Mr. Boortz has repeatedly expressed his frustrations with Americans who were unwilling to do more than show token signs of support for real change against the Obama administration. He has stated that “a bunch of people throwing teabags on the ground (or in the water) is not going to impress the politicians, nor is mailing teabags to them”. In his eyes, this is taking the lazy way out, and hoping that someone else will come along and do the real work for them.  

I actually agree with him completely. Seriously, what is a politician going to do when he opens the envelope with the teabag in it (providing it even gets past security)… hold it up and burst into tears about how wrong he was? Not likely.   As Boortz has suggested, a much better idea would be to form a voter registration recruitment drive, then mail the politicians a copy of the voter’s new registration card with the message “I’ve had it.  Next election, I’m voting”. That’ll be sure to get his attention.

However, I think that Boortz, despite his understandable irritation with the lack of real substance in combating the Obama administration, is missing the real point of these tea parties. 

The way I see it, the tea parties are not intended to change the minds of the politicians. Rather, they’re intended more as an inspiration to the attendees themselves, who in turn will be motivated enough to actually organize or participate in something that truly will help change the course of events. These rallies are for them, not the politicians, who in all likelihood, aren’t going to see the rallies anyway, I suspect due to lack of media coverage. The organizers are likely already aware of this, so they do what they can to get the audience themselves fired up. If this means throwing teabags on the ground in a symbolic gesture, then that’s what they’ll do. If it means listening to guest speakers railing against the government’s actions, then they’ll do that. 

At the Orlando Tea Party that I attended (attendance estimated at 6,000 people), organized by Lisa Feroli and emceed by talk show host Bud Hedinger of “Bud Hedinger, Live!”, we participated in a variety of activities, including taking an oath of allegiance (similar to the one recruits of the U.S. military take), two 10-minute rounds of ordinary people speaking their grievances, and even signed a “Tea Party Declaration”, a parchment that had a list of listener’s grievances and contained 50 feet of blank space to sign our names in. Some photos and videos of the event can be found on Bud’s webpage. Not one teabag was thrown anywhere that I’m aware of. If this is what people feel that they need to do to be inspired enough to take their activism to the next step, then let them do that.

 I also noticed several people carrying FairTax signs, banners, and t-shirts there as well (many of them suggesting to readers to “ask them about it”). Who is to say that Boortz didn’t get a lot of supporters for the FairTax as a result of this rally? How many really did “ask about it”? It’s possible that the first time some people may have heard of the FairTax was at this tea party. Maybe many of them will actually show up at the next FairTax rally being held in Jacksonville on April 11^th.   Wouldn’t that make Boortz happy?

There were also a lot of “Who is John Galt?” signs as well.  Curious attendees may google his name, and learn that he is the main hero in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”, a book that I understand eerily mirrors today’s lean towards Socialism in America.  The book is plugged frequently by Boortz on his show. Wouldn’t that be good exposure?  

As Boort’s producer, Belinda Skeleton pointed out to him, not everyone has the same resources as he does. Not everyone can devote the same time and energy as he can towards their cause. Some people truly want to make a difference, and just do it the best way they can. Will they all be productive? Of course not, but maybe that one thing they do, no matter how shallow or silly it will seem to others, will encourage them to take the next step that really will make the difference.  

Neal, love ya long time. You have, in my opinion, the best show on the air, topping even Limbaugh and Hannity, and I’m going to keep right on listening, but seriously, lighten up a tad, will ya? Not too much, mind you, just a smidge.

News has broken out on all forms of media lately about the joy over the results of Obama’s recent victory in the election.   Newspaper headlines have screamed that “change is here”.  Television has shown scores of cheering Obama supporters celebrating in the streets.  Hollywood celebrities, from actors, to singers, to talk show hosts, have gushed over their admiration for the new President-elect. 

Europe will love us again?  Is this really what it’s all about to Americans now?  Have we really sunk this low?  Are we so desperate to be liked by the world that we’ve willingly chosen an untested, unproven, inexperienced politician with an openly Marxist theology just to win the rest of the world’s favor? 

We've just became that kid on the playground who went from being the one to who the other kids would naturally follow, to the one that would be so desperate for acceptance, he would be willing to hurt himself just to gain their approval.   Well folks, we’ve just hurt ourselves in a major way. 

My message to Americans; here’s the dirty little secret… Europeans still don’t love you.  They love our new, upcoming, eager to please them, Socialist style government, yes, but not you.  They will still snicker at you behind your backs.  They will still lampoon you as the nosy, fat, loud, ugly, lazy, gum-chewing, baseball cap and sneakers wearing Americans as they have for years. 

Here’s a fun fact; in a poll taken some time back, 53% of these Europeans said that they wanted to see America in a much weaker global role.  Also, if they could vote in our elections, 83% would have voted for Obama.  Weaker role… vote for Obama… I’ll let you draw your own conclusions. 

Obama supporters… do you honestly believe that the Europeans, or the Russians, or Chinese, etc., really give a damn what you think about them?  Do you think that they run their lives based on our opinions of them?  The short answer is… no, and we shouldn’t care about their opinions either.

Now, my message to the European Obama lovers; enjoy it now while you can.  While we may have temporarily lost our senses and discarded an experienced, tried and tested leader (even if he wasn’t the most ideal candidate, for many of us) and hurt ourselves by voting for a pretender, it won’t last forever.  We who have opposed Obama, and others like him, will eventually re-gather ourselves.  We will learn from our mistakes.   America will rise again, not because of Obama as you might think, but despite of Obama. 

If there’s one thing that this election has taught us conservatives, is that we’ve grown far too complacent with not only our freedoms, but in our dealings with the liberals.  We’re going to have at least four years to reflect on that, to remember why we became conservatives, and we WILL correct our mistakes in future elections.  In a strange way, maybe having Obama in power to remind us who we are will be the best thing that ever happened to us.