Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

Monday, December 14, 2015


~The small, precise or trivial details of something~
I have witnessed, over the past year or so, among many friends on social media, an explosion of outrage, angst, bloviation and most troubling, outright rejection of every single Republican presidential candidate over the most trivial of issues.  The ideological purity demanded by a large portion of the electorate for their pet issues is very troubling and I fear will lead to another term with a mafia state Democrat residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  

I sadly admit that I myself have participated in this insanity, and have voiced my intention to either not vote or symbolically vote for a non-viable candidate in a third party if my preferred guy does not claim the Republican nomination.  But lately it has occurred to me that we may be cutting off our nose to spite our face with this stubborn demand of ideological wholesomeness that seems to consume many of us today.

The concerns are real, and I don’t mean to make them out to be anything but, however I think we tend to be blind to the forest for the trees on many of these issues.  For instance, why would someone refuse to support a Marco Rubio as a Republican nominee vs a Hillary Clinton because he is not perceived to be tough enough on illegal immigration?  He would almost certainly be better on the issue at the end of the day.  Or why would one reject the idea of pulling the lever for Ted Cruz were he chosen by the GOP vs a Bernie Sanders?  Because he is too extreme?  Versus an admitted Socialist?
Can anyone really believe that Rand Paul’s insistence that sending troops into combat on some foreign battlefield requiring a declaration of war from congress is more dangerous to our national security than a president that emboldens those who seek to do us harm through support and arms against some dictator that has kept the radicals at bay in his own country and then works against those allies that are battling them?   Why exactly is Jeb Bush a bigger threat to your liberties than a party that believes you have no right to the tools of self defense against, among other things, an oppressive and over reaching federal government?

Granted, some folks have real problems with stands that certain candidates have made on issues that the media has forced into our faces.  I submit that we are letting the media guide our thinking on these issues and losing sight of the big picture.  What difference does a candidate’s stand on the issue of a few pet civil liberty issues make when the alternative is a candidate that would take away all civil liberties?  Why refuse to support a candidate because you don’t like their position on marijuana legalization and insure that we end up with a president that will destroy the economy to the point that you couldn’t afford marijuana if it was legal in your state?   Yes, these are important topics to be sure, but pale in comparison to the bigger issues at play. 

The Supreme Court is also a very large consideration that must come into play.  With the advanced age of some of the current justices, undoubtedly the next POTUS will be nominating at least a few appointees to the high court.  I have heard many on the Libertarian side express concern that a conservative president might make appointments that will be bad for civil liberties in some cases.  This very well could be true but I would argue that the alternative could be much worse.  There is no doubt that many cases of government and executive over reach into the affairs of the private sector will be coming before the court in the years ahead, especially after the presidency of Barack Obama.  And liberal justices have shown that adherence to the strict constructionist view of the constitution will not sway their leftist ideology in decisions.  So while a constructionist court may trample a few civil liberties, a liberal court could have a far more devastating effect on the republic, the economy, and our civil liberties as they are not guided by the restrictions placed on government by our constitution but rather by the utopian goals of leftism.  Is a cop requiring a proper subpoena to search a car in Georgia a bigger issue than our entire system of government and the restrictions of same transformed into a liberal hegemony?

We are in the midst of the primary campaign season, and I understand us all having our preferred candidates and backing them through this process all the way.  That is as it should be.  But at the end of the day, we must take our role as voters seriously and make a choice based on what is best for the republic and future generations.  We have an imperfect system, with any candidate they will have some deficiencies as far as representing what is important to us.  I think however we should support an eventual nominee if they recognize at least some restrictions on their power.  The current crop of Democrats, emboldened by the latest of their party to occupy the post, will see no hindrance to their tyrannical aims and we need to keep in mind what we could lose if we let the wrong person be elected to the highest post in the land. 

Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address:
“I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts.”

Of course the elephant in the room may negate all of this lecturing on my part……..  But remember, I said Republican candidates, I don’t consider him a Republican. 

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Another Obama State of the Union, Let’s Count the Lies

Tonight we will have to endure another Obama State of the Union address before a joint session of congress. I had in mind to suggest a drinking game based on the Occupier in Chief’s lies and half truths but I’m afraid hospitals all over the country would be overwhelmed with cases of alcohol poisoning and liver failures. It did however give me the idea to go back and take another look at fibs in Scooter’s previous addresses to congress. I was dumbfounded as I read, to list all his whoppers would require a book, but let’s examine some of the highlights.

In his first State of the Union address in 2009 we got these doozies. Speaking about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the precedent President stated:

“Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.”
In March of this past year, the Pravda of the Obama administration otherwise known as the New York Times had to admit that after all the spending from the ARRA, instead of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs, we lost an additional 2 million.

He then talked about the dangers of growing the deficit, this was kind of like Rosie O’Donnell extolling the virtues of charm school.

“There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down”.
This from the man who has added more debt to our children’s future serfdom than any past President.

“Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we’re starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade.”

I defy anyone, to find one single item other than the military that this President has asked to be cut.

In 2010 the jug eared elocutionist really encouraged us to have a “willing suspension of disbelief” with these little myths.

“Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.”

Yes Virginia, he really said that. Of course he didn’t really believe it, and neither did we. But he wasn’t through yet with his proboscis growing statements. He then cut loose with this little gem on lobbyists.

“That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.”

The fact is there are more unrecorded visitors to the White House these days than to a cheap New Orleans whore house. And they have a little work-around to the visitor logs anyway. They just get together at the satellite offices with the folks they don’t want us to know they are meeting with. This administration also has plenty of lobbyists on the payroll.

Last year Obama not only continued to grow the deficit, he also grew the “deficit of trust” of the American people. First he went back to his support of freezing spending.

“So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. Now, this would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was President.”

Of course we know he has gone back and asked for debt ceiling increases twice since then. And then, he pushed another recycled lie.

“Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done -- put that information online.”

So we face another Obama State of the Union address this week, and there will no doubt be a plethora of lies and half truths spilled forth from the teleprompter during it. But in the interest of public safety, if you must play a drinking game based on these fables, make the shots small.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

National Stalker Awareness Month

    So I noticed that Skippy took time out from another round of golf in Hawaii to issue a proclamation this week.  January 2012 is now officially National Stalker Awareness Month.  I would like to personally take this opportunity to thank the jug eared Marxist in chief for bringing this issue to the forefront.  You see, I, Johnny Alamo, am a victim of stalking.
    I began to notice the stalking of my person back in the 70’s.  This stalker was prying into my personal information in a way that could only be construed as illegal.  He knows where I live, and where I work.  He demands that my boss relinquish personal information about me and even that my employer send a portion of my wages to him.  He extorts this money at gunpoint and gets away with it.
    He knows what kind of vehicle I drive, where I bought it, and what county it is in.  He has demanded that I contribute money to car companies that only employ workers that he approves of and build cars that nobody wants to buy.  He has also forced me to give money to failed financial institutions to prop them up for making bad business decisions that he has forced them to make.  And then he strong arms me to give money to people that won’t work for a living so that they can have the same or a better level of comfort in life than I have.
    He knows what weapons I purchase for protection, where I buy them from and is attempting to prevent me from buying more.  He also tells me which weapons I can buy and which ones I can’t.  At the same time he compels me to buy weapons for drug cartels in Mexico so they can kill our border agents with them.
    He knows if I have health insurance or not and can make me purchase it even if I don’t want to.  He is attempting to gain access to all my medical records as well.  He will also determine what health care procedures I can have and which ones I can’t.  And if I get too old he will determine that I am not worth many life saving procedures any longer.
    He increasingly knows my whereabouts at all times and knows where I travel to and when.  He also has sexually accosted me in airports and invaded my privacy in numerous ways when I travel.  He even has machines that will take nude photographs of me and does not allow me to see them or know what he does with them.
    This stalker even is trying to tell me what I can feed my family and myself.  He forces the food establishments that I frequent and companies that I purchase packaged food products from to limit my choices to what he deems healthy and suitable for my ingestion.
    If I buy a piece of land, he tells me what I can and can’t do with it, if I start a business he tells me what I can and can’t sell and even tells me what I can charge for it.  If I want to move my business to another state that is more friendly to the environment we operate in , he tells me I can’t.  If I hire employees he tells me how much they will make, what benefits I will provide and that I can’t fire them if I want to.
    In short, this stalker has intruded into every aspect of my life in one way or another.  In fact, I could charge him of many more crimes than stalking.  So how could any court of public opinion condemn me for protecting myself from this monster?  If I could only find a law enforcement agency or court to file a complaint with that this stalker does not already control with his money, influence and intimidation like Don Corleone.  I could tell them where to find him………… 
h/t Kernel Mustard

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Cain is out. What now?

Yesterday Herman Cain announced his decision to suspend his campaign for President of the United States.  While I am a big fan of Mr. Cain I think he made the right decision here for several reasons.

         The left and their media attack dogs were holding his head under water and were never going to give him any air.  They couldn’t afford to, as I have said before, they were scared to death of the prospect of having to run their messiah against another black man.  While their minions were writhing around trying to tie Cain’s support among conservatives to racism because that is all they have, they were falling flat on their faces in the process.

      While I personally do not think for a minute that Mr. Cain is guilty of any of the things he was accused of, these fictional issues did illuminate a major fault, and that was crisis management.  He and his team could have ended or at least lessened the impact of the attacks with a strong message right out of the gate.  This inadequacy was made even more glaringly obvious when it was revealed that he and his team knew days before the breaking of the first accusation that it was coming and yet fumbled so badly in their response that he didn’t just look unprepared but also guilty.  Had they a proper answer to the charges they most likely would have benefitted in the end.  This is apparent by his initial rise in the polls after the first accusation.  The base understands these dirty tricks by the left and the media and would have been sympathetic to his plight had he responded properly.  Had that happened the left may have hesitated before producing another woman.

          After the first accusation he and his team failed to learn a lesson and prepare for number two and three.  Those responses were almost as tardy and weak as the first.  This indicates that the people he surrounds himself with are incompetent and does not send a message that he is prepared for the highest office.  I think his drop in support has more to do with that than the accusations against him.

         While I do not fault him for this foreign policy question answer/non-answer, I know he was really tired at the time, his thoughts on foreign issues are not much more coherent when he is wide awake.  He has some really good ideas on domestic policy but unfortunately that is only half the job.  I happen to think that principle can get you through on foreign policy issues and no doubt Cain could apply that.  But he would have to debate Obama if he won the nomination and his dyslexia over such issues would be glaringly obvious.

     It really pains me to say all of this because I was so enamored with the idea of a Washington outsider coming in and shaking things up.  And to a certain extent the candidacy of Cain and Bachmann and the potential candidacy of Sarah Palin has done just that.  The conversation has moved decidedly to the right this year.  Mitt, Newt and the rest of the pack have had to take up a more conservative stance on issues than we talked about in 2008.  I give Cain and his early successes part of the credit for that.  But now we must move on and select who we want to back next.  I continue to adopt an “anyone but Romney” approach to this primary season.  And in spite of his occasional transgressions on some issues in the past I now hang my hat on Newt Gingrich.  

    The reasons for my decision to endorse Newt are numerous.  For all his faults (and he has several) he still is probably most conservative “viable” candidate left to oppose the Ken doll.  Santorum is a really staunch conservative but is not really likable.  From what I understand he is not particularly liked even in his home state of Pennsylvania, and he always has that perpetual pissed off look on his face.  While I do too concerning American politics over the past several years, it does not help you to become President. 

     The upside of Newt is that he is definitely the “smartest guy in the room” and will devastate the Socialist and Chief in any debate.  In fact if Newt gets the nomination, I expect that the Obama camp will refuse to debate.  Newt is also very good at handling, disarming and eviscerating a hostile press.  His press conferences would become a spectator sport kinda like watching Christians being eaten by lions.  (Of course I don’t mean to compare the media to Christians here)  Newt also understands exactly what is required for this country to flourish.  He is a free market principle guy for the most part and understands the Constitution and what it really means better than any of the so-called constitutional scholars you hear on the alphabet networks.  He has a past, and that will get dredged up.  (If only the media spent half the time researching Obama’s past as they have on any of the Republican candidates.)  But that is a storm he will have to weather.  I think he is uniquely qualified to handle those storms unless they find out he murdered his children or something.  Of course knowing the left and the press I am sure they will accuse him of that anyway once it starts looking like he might win.  And by left I also mean the Romney camp of course.

    At the end of the day, whoever the nominee is, (even Romney) we must get behind that candidate and support them like they were our own kin.  This country cannot survive four more years of Barack Hussein Obama, especially if he does not have to worry about re-election.

     Amici mei habete fidem!  

Thursday, November 24, 2011

When Is A Cut Not A Cut?

Ever heard the one about the wife that comes home, arms full of shopping bags and says to her husband, “Boy I saved you a bunch of money today”?  I figure she must work for the Congressional Budget Office because that is exactly the load of bull pucks they are trying to sell us now.  We hear a lot of talk from the shysters in DC about cuts.  And the super committee being deadlocked between the Republicans that want “cuts” and the democrats that want tax increases because the “cuts” would be too painful and the rivers would stop flowing, the sky would fall and the sun would go supernova.  The plain and simple truth is there are no cuts, never was and probably never will be.  Both sides are lying to you about that.

The reason they get away with these lies is that they changed the meaning of the word “cuts”.  They did this by using a little tool they developed called “Baseline Budgeting”.  The way it works is that increases due to predicted inflation rates and government service expansions (that’s a fancy way of saying hiring more people) are automatically figured into the next year’s budget.    On average, the Congressional Budget Office increases spending projections each year by about 20%.  Then, if we only spend 19% more the next year, YAHOO!  We cut 1%!!!!!!!!   
The fact is, that if we froze all government spending right now, spent the same amount next year as we did this year and so on and so on for the next ten years, the CBO would call that a 9 trillion dollar cut!   As I said before, both sides are lying to you about this.  Republicans are telling you they are slashing budgets……  LIE!  They are only slashing the automatic increase that will happen, spending will still go up.  Democrats tell you they will have to cut programs for vital services like Medicare to make reductions…….  LIE!  Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, EPA, Energy, Education and the rest of the plethora of government programs won’t get cut one red cent, only the extra money they were planning on getting their grubby mitts on next year will be less.
The fatal flaw that should be screaming out to all of us, (or at least all of us that are not smoking dope in a tent at Zucotti park or eating steak and arugula in the oval office) is that this method of budgeting does not take into consideration projected revenue at all.  You see, congress really does not care how much money it will take in while figuring out the next year’s budget, only what they want to spend.  Everything is figured based on that.   If they don’t come up with enough revenue there are only two choices as far as they are concerned.  Raise taxes or deficit spend, it doesn’t even compute in their little pea brains to cut back on the size and scope of the federal government.
That, my friends, is what it is going to take to fix the mess we are in and actually reduce our debt.  While it is vitally important to get the Community Organizer in Chief out of the White House, of even more importance is replacing those men and women in congress on both sides of the isle with citizens that are committed to a smaller federal government.   We may not get there this election or next, the best we may be able to accomplish is to stop or slow the bleeding of this once great nation this coming November.  But let us not grow complacent and satisfied at that point.  Our problems as a nation are much deeper than that.  It is going to require us to be committed, engaged, active and resolute in our mission to rid Washington DC of professional politicians and replace them with patriots who desire to serve.  Our forefathers were committed to sacrifice everything to build this republic.   Are you committed to preserving it?

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Why Nobody Should Watch the MSM

This past week I visited the windy city because I really enjoy freezing my buns off in a liberal bastion that produces characters like Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel.  While waiting for some friends in a hotel bar I got the opportunity to watch the ABC World News with Diane Sawyer on the big screen TV behind the bar.  Now normally I would chew off my own right arm to escape such a situation, but I had already bought a Jack and Coke and it would be a mortal sin to waste it. And far be it from me to upset the ghost of Jasper Newton Daniel.  
As I watched the entire “news” program from beginning to end I was struck by the lack of coverage on the Occupy Wall Street movement.  In fact the only thing good old Diane brought up about the issue was a photo of an elderly (and obviously off her meds deranged) 84 year old woman that had just been pepper sprayed stating that she was the “new face” of the OWS movement.  Proving of course that the right wing want nothing more than to kill the elderly and throw them off cliffs as the democrats have told us all along.......... 
Now, since I normally get my information from the few actual news sources and real journalists out there, I knew there was a lot of other news that day on the dirty smelly entitlement hippie movement.  Like for instance the sidewalk pooping.  Or the hypodermic needles found by the bushel basket full after clearing Zucotti Park.  Or perhaps that the occupiers were stockpiling weapons there.  

Call me silly to think that a national news show would want to tell the American people about threats to throw Molotov Cocktails through the windows at Macy’s.  And of course it would just be irresponsible to report that the OWS movement is allied with a Greek Communist Terror Group.  And I am sure the voters wouldn’t want to know about their representative excusing the deaths and rapes that have occurred at the OWS camps.  
All of these stories and many, many more were broken over a two day period prior to Ms. Sawyers broadcast that I was so honored to watch.  And I am sure the same “non-coverage” took place on NBC, CBS, MSNBC and of course CNN.  We did however get several minutes of coverage on Herman Cain hesitating before answering a question, and Newt Gingrich's divorces.  So, I have one conclusion for you.  If you have watched any of these networks for your source of news you are ill-informed.  If you continue to watch them, you are an idiot.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Mitt, He’s Not The 99%, He’s Not the 1%, He Is The Perennial 20 Percenter.

I find it curious that in this past year, all potential candidates for the Republican nomination for President are measured against one other candidate, Mitt Romney.  There are a few reasons I can think of for the talking heads to want to use this 12 inch ruler to measure a Saturn 5 rocket.  Not the least of which is their desire to make sure that if a Republican does kick their beloved Kenyan prince out of the White House in 2012, it will at least be the Republican that will do the least damage to their left wing agenda.  This is the same reason they tried (successfully) to convince us of how awesome the Mavericky one was in 2008 (until he got the nomination that is). But I don’t think it will work this time around, because Mitt is stuck at 20% support and I believe that is about as high as he will ever get.  
In 2008 Romney never commanded more than the mid 20% range in polling, and ended up with just 22.1% of the national primary vote.  We know him better now.  I believe there is a core group of squishy country club Republicans that will always provide that 20% support that Romney enjoys.  “You  know Lovey, we just must make sure that those bourgeois Yale types don’t take over our party”   But Mitt’s problem is we remember what he stood for in 1996, in 1998, in 2000, in 2004, in 2008 and what he stands for now.  Only Rich Little can bring more personalities to a party than our buddy Mittens.  And this is why we must make sure he does not get the nomination and become our candidate.  The man has no principle.  He will get on whatever side of an issue he thinks will do him the most good politically.  If we want that in a leader we should draft Billy Jeff Clinton to come back to the job, at least he was somewhat entertaining.
Of course these same folks (and some so-called conservative pundits) also tell us that Mittens is the only one that can beat Obama.  Anyone with half a brain and just a little political savvy knows that is pure bull excrement.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  Romney is the candidate most likely to lose against Obama in a general election.  In debates for example, with just a little research on the Obama team’s part, they will be able to counter any criticism Romney has for Sparky with an example of old Mitt supporting the very same idea in the past.   

The 20 percenters are fond of telling us how these cursed Tea Party type candidates are raising the poor unwashed idiot voter’s expectations too high with their fairy tales about free markets and constitutional values and will cause disenfranchisement among a big section of the base when Mittens surely, naturally  wins the nomination.  Well, they may be right about that.  But the disenfranchisement will be because of the weakness of their candidate, not the principle of others.  I don’t even understand this argument.  Are we supposed to ignore our values and not vote for our candidate of choice in the primary because we might be excited to go out and vote on Election Day?
So to recap, we are supposed to vote for Mitt Romney because:

a)     He won’t work to destroy the status quo in  Washington and dismantle the liberal agenda.

b)     He is like Texas weather and if you don’t care for his position on an issue just wait a few minutes and it will change

c)       He is at least as principled as Bill Clinton

d)      He will lower voter energy for 80% of the conservative voters.

e)      He is probably the candidate most likely to lose to Obama. (with the possible exception of Ron Paul)

f)       He’s got really good hair, (like John Edwards) 

So if you really want 4 more years of republic killing Hope N Change, the easiest way to get it is to pull that lever for Mitt Romney in your primary.  Otherwise, choose a principled candidate that will inspire the American people, hey, it worked for us once before……………