Participants also said Obama had referred to this week's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed. His remarks put in perspective that the hardships soldiers endure for the country are "what sacrifice really is," as opposed to "casting a vote that might lose an election for you," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J. - AP News 118/09

Film maker Roman Polanski broke the law.  It is that simple.  Recently I listened to a debate with the question, concerning this subject, posed, "what if it was your daughter, would you not want justice?"  Now as a father of a little girl, I find nothing wrong with the question.  However, there is a larger issue behind the question of Polanski.  And this issue, is why the Polanski matter - matters.

Now for reasons of discussion, through this entry we will refer to those on the other side of the aisle of what you and I believe, the Left. The Left has proven again, through their reasoning on Polanski, that enforcement of the Law - is conditional.  Those on the Left believe that the Law only matters, when they need it to matter.  (In fact, above and beyond the Law we see this inconsistent thought process in everything.  Reaction to Governor Sanford verses "Late Night's" Letterman being a great example.)  Here are three arguments recently used by the Left, in arguing for the freedom of Polanski, that proves their conditional enforcement of the Law.

1.  She, the victim, does not care anymore:  Victim rights only matter, when decided on by the Left

Repeatedly we have heard that the victim in crime has forgiven Polanski and has simply wanted the charges to be dropped.  According to the Left, this is every reason to let Mr. Polanski alone.  And while it is borderline heroic of his victim to forgive, that process did not take place overnight.  In fact her public forgiveness came twenty some years after the crime. Her forgiveness came with a price - one most likely with pain.

And Law, the enforcement of, does not depend upon the opinion or feelings of the victim.  An example of such can be found in abuse victims. Many times abuse victims have sadly become attached to and even miss their abusers after the crime.  Yet the abuse victim's attitude, emotional state, and opinion - does not impact the enforcement of the Law.  Nor should it.  The Law is the Law, in the words of Aristotle, "without passion."

On a side note, the Left only seems to deny victims rights, (i.e. Letterman harassment, post-abortion mothers, anyone involved with Kennedy, Rangle, Clintons) when it is convenient.  A thirteen year old girl was victimized by a 40 year old man in the 1970s.  What about her rights at that time, or ten years later, or during her counseling, or when she suffered through the personal, private, and public embarassment?

2. Polanski never abused and would never abuse again:  Will the crime be repeated?

This one is almost too rediculous to address.  There have been many who have actually posed this argument in favor of Polanksi, that he would never abuse again.  The Law is not written for that reason.

The Law states a certain offense equals a certain penalty.  Whether or not the criminal will break the law again is not taken into consideration with enforcement of the Law.  If we think along the lines of the Left then each of us would get a "freebie" for any first time offense (breaking speed limit, shop lifting, murder) as long as we - promise to never do it again.  

The Law is written to protect the citizens, not to guarantee that a criminal gets a first time offense without penalty.  

3. Does this better society, according to the ideals of the Left?

One writer made it quite clear that putting Polanski in jail would not better society.  Really?  Not enforcing laws written on the books, would not better society?  Why write more laws, if we do not enforce the ones we already have written?  Not enforcing the law, is abuse of the law. Abuse of the law, renders the law pointless.  Pointless laws eventually leads to a lawless society.  

Now you may read this and think I have gone a little too sensational.  However, do we not constantly see this pattern on the Left?  Laws abused by Congressman Rangel, corporations and financial institutions under the watch of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, Attorney General Holder, and let us not even start on the Clinton years - point to a consistent behavior of abusing the Law.  The Left refuses to enforce Law if it is inconvenient for them.

In addition, once again, the Law is not written based upon the "good of society" if the law is enforced.  The Law is written to be enforced - for the good of society.  Criminal laws are written to be enforced, whether the person be famous, elected, or not.

Conclusion:  And within this writing we see a consistent pattern that leads us down a questionable road.  All enforcement of the law, according to the Left, depends upon definitions and interpretations given by the Left.  If there are certain conditions, certain ideals at stake, or just someone they know - the Law no longer matters.  And if it benefits a cause of the Left, politically accounts, or betters their movement or goals - they wield the law (Eric Holder) usually in a wrong manner.

The questionable road lays in the following questions.  Do we really want a government ran by individuals who can decided when and when not to enforce laws?  Do we want to be "led" by individuals who can decided that a crime against you - was not a crime at all?  Do we want people in power who can commit wrongs against the people - and never be called criminals?  Led by these people?  Yes, according to a Politico articletoday:

Movie industry types calling for the release of director Roman Polanski last year gave $34,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, FEC records show.

Law is Law.  Enforcement of the Law, blind justice, is crucial to our Republic.  And yet, through Polanski, the Left demonstrates again that enforcing the Law is - conditional. 

This may very well be the most important story you will read today.  While this Administration plays appeasement, countries our out to destroy us.  While health care, czars, and national issues are of major importance, we cannot, we must not, forget foreign affairs.

This Administration is destroying our position in the world.  Our super power status is not slipping every day - it is hurling down a hill.  Here is quotation from the linked article:

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil – yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy. 

Link

Everybody loves a parade.  My three year old, loves a parade.  The bands, the candy, the floats, the entertainment - the weapons of mass destruction, tanks, and enough infantry to make the West take notice.  Okay, so this particular parade my three year old would not like.

But the world noticed this "special" parade held yesterday.  (It reminded us of those warm fuzzy feelings of the May Day parades during the Cold War.)

The Empire State Building even turned the colors of Red and Yellow to mark this special parade.  (Just months after the national flag of China flew at the White House - to mark this "special day.")  And of course I am talking about the Sixtieth Anniversary celebration of the bloody communist overthrow in what is now called - The People's Republic of China.

What a contradiction in terms: the People's Republic of China.  Does the country really belong to the people?  Hardly.  If it did it would be called - freedom.  And yet, many on the left, have marked the day as special.  I did a little research on the track record of government leaders - in the People's Republic by reading just two articles printed yesterday.

Bloomberg reported the following truths on their Economics:

Economic growth and rising global influence have come at the cost of domestic expression. Opposition to Communist Party rule is banned while dissent, including the 1989 student demonstrations in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, is crushed.

As many as 800 million Chinese, 60 percent of the population, still live in the countryside, and rapid development has left millions of them behind. Still socialist in name, China has a wider income gap than Taiwan and South Korea have now, or had during their export-led industrializations.

On Ethnic Tensions, Bloomberg reported:

The worst riots in six decades broke out in the past two years in Tibet and the Uighur’s homeland of Xinjiang, two provinces on China’s western fringe, spurred by income gaps along ethnic and religious fissures.

On the Environment, Bloomberg continued with:

 The world’s most populous nation has also become the largest consumer of commodities and one of the biggest energy users. China last year passed the U.S. as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, and widespread pollution of its atmosphere and waterways is rarely checked by public opposition.

The smog that enveloped Beijing for three days before today’s parade lifted overnight after a light rainfall and the parade took place under clear blue skies.

And Britain jumped into the truth telling game concerning the massive celebration of Communist China (who uses capitalism to fund its militaristic government and society.)  On the economy of China, the Daily Mail writes:

 But beneath today's orgy of celebrations that marks the anniversary lurksa disturbing reality. Mao's successors may have embraced cut-throat capitalism to a degree that makes even Western economists blanch. But the arrangements for the parade are a reminder that China remains a deeply authoritarian society.

On Ethnic tensions, the Daily Mail reports:

 Tibet has also been closed off to foreigners for the duration - a reminder of China's expansionist ambitions, and of the threat it could pose to world peace in years to come.

On Education, the Daily Mail comments:

Since Chinese history is rarely taught in our schools and universities, it is not surprising that most Britons have only the foggiest notion of what goes on in the world's most populous nation. 

When the Communists seized control in 1949, China was a poverty-stricken basket case, ravaged by famine, ethnic tension and feuding between rival warlords.  And in the years that followed, Mao's policies of forced industrialisation and collective farming, as well as his murderous purges of the middle classes, accounted for millions of deaths.

On the Brutality of the Chinese government, Daily Mail writes:

 One scholarly estimate suggests that in 40 years, almost 80 million Chinese were slaughtered or died as a result of government policy - making the regime the biggest killer in history.

But now, of course, all that is conveniently forgotten. And British politicians are more likely to pay tribute to China's economic renaissance than to draw attention to the undemocratic brutality of its Communist regime.

And on World Domination, the Daily Mail concludes:

 With some $800 billion of U.S Treasury securities, China now has a hold over the American economy that would have seemed unthinkable a few decades ago.

Yet there is a dark side to China's revival - a disturbing instinct for sabre-rattling and neo-imperialism that arguably poses the biggest threat to world peace since the Cold War.

What we often forget about China is that it is not an ordinary nation-state like any other. It is a rigid, highly militarised and intensely nationalistic empire, in which 1.2 billion Han Chinese dominate dozens of other ethnic groups, by force if necessary.

In Conclusion:

And while the Chinese government manipulated the weather to make it sunny for their parade, the above facts, only taken from two news articles printed yesterday - truly rains on any parade.  Maybe the folks over at that Empire State Building, the White House, our Presidential Administration - should have read the above articles.

Welcome - to the new Cold War, yet another communistic, socialist, Evil Empire.

Read Bloomberg Article

Read Daily Mail Article

It is a beautiful day in the news when the following happens.  Politico ran a story on Sarah Palin's new book, depicting the co-author as:

Sarah Palin's most consequential choice since leaving the Alaska governor's mansion may be her co-author - a staunch conservative, devoted evangelical Christian, and intensely partisan Republican from far, far outside the Beltway.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27777.html#ixzz0SeNrGtZ9

Heaven forbid.  

Right underneath the article was a second article which bears the title:

Palin 'grateful' for top spot

Her book is number one seller on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com.  It is not released until November 17.

Could it just be that nobody really cares about the views of her coauthor?  Or could it just be, the country is still politically positioned - center right?

Link

And they criticize Richard Nixon for scorched earth politics?  These people make Richard Nixon look like a Boy Scout... when it comes to political ethics.

Link

Our President will be calling for banking reforms ten days prior to the G-20 summit.  The article states the following:

Speaking just 10 days before the start of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh – at which world leaders are set to discuss curtailing bankers' bonuses among a raft of potentially restrictive reforms – he will also put the amount of capital banks hold on their balance sheets back at the top of the agenda

Larry Summers, top economic aid to the President, is quoted in the article that the reforms to be proposed will include the need to regulate institutions which have become so large that their collapse might threaten systemic stability.  So much for capitalism.

Please remember, Mr. Summers recently informed us that the greatest indicator that the economy is turning around - because fewer people are doing Google searches on "economic depression."  And this gentlemen is helping to develop our economic policy - nice.

And not to mention, it appears the President will call for these reforms on a world wide level.  Why would the world listen to a President on banking reforms, who is sinking a nation into deeper and deeper debt?  And whatever happened to "not having the arrogance to think that the United States can tell the rest of the world what to do" mentality?  Another contradiction from this Administration.  I guess that mentality only applies to - foreign policy, protecting the nation, or national defence.

These kind of ideas only lead the United States down the path - to more foreign say in the leadership of our national financial institutions, regulation that kills capitalism, and simply sinking us deeper into a world economic collapse.  And this Administration seems to consistently fuel one question:  Why continue to even make a living?

Oh that is right - to pay the taxes.

Link

Yes, you read the title correctly:  Finger bitten off during California health protest.  My first response, as I am sure was your response, "would this be covered under the current plan before Congress?  Or would I need to speak with a committee before having my finger re-attached?"

I have written several pieces on the "death of dialogue" in American political rhetoric.  But... really?  Biting?  Have the town hall meetings been reduced to playground biting?  I believe that even Ozzy Osbourne would be taken back by this story.  Of course, with this current plan before Congress, amputation by biting may be the only cost and time efficient form of surgery in the near future.

Link

Like many of you I have been absolutely floored at the definition of "moral imperative" given to us by the Left.  For many on the left a moral imperative is not - being faithful to your wife (though some on the right have missed this one as well), protecting the rights of the unborn, defending the rights of the second amendment, or even defending the positions of the nation.

No, for many of them a moral imperative - is health care.  Honoring your spouse, protecting life, defending the Constitution - how could those ever be moral imperatives?  No, it has to be health care - THE moral imperative.

Let us never say that those on the opposite side of the aisle care nothing of morality.  For they do - it has just been wrapped up in their fifty year battle for socialized medicine.  Since many of the Kennedys, the Clintons, and the Gores believe health care is a moral imperative - I have a plan.

1.  Begin an open sign-up list of those believing health care to be a "moral imperative."  The list can begin with the Clintons, Gores, and Kennedys and we can sign up many other names from there.  I understand that manybelieve health care to be a right.  So now they have a place to put their name on the dotted line.

2.  Take the ever growing list and begin deducting 25% - 30% of their post-tax incomes and placing it in a government ran account.  Now the account will earn a little interest, probably not as much as if it was privately held, which will be plugged right back into our new account.

3.  The account will be entitled:  "Health Care For All, Health Care Now."

4.  The account, drawing on the incomes of those on our list, will fund their belief and rhetoric that health care is a moral imperative.

5.  We will need to hire someone to run this new government program.  I hear Janet Reno is available.  I also bet that the person who ran the bankrupt Canadian health care program has some free time as well.

6.  Individuals who believe they have a right to health care and cannot or chose not to pay for it - can sign up for free health care.

7.  Anyone who makes a speech, a movie (documentary), an appearance or else wise concerning health care, who has signed up for our list, will invest all monies made on such speeches, movies, appearances back into the "Health Care For All, Health Care Now" account.  We have to pay Janet.  Sorry Mr. Vice President - no Oscar for this one.

8.  At the end of the first year, a committee to the subcommittee, of another committee will study - for one year - the effectiveness of the program.  Congressman Charles Rangel will chair this effort.  (Note:  the Honorable Rangel will not be allowed near the actually money in our account.)

9.  And finally, after that year of study, we will change the name on the account from "Health Care for All, Health Care Now" and place in loving memory, the one name that all think of when they think health care.  The distinguished gentleman - Jimmy Carter.  Why?  I do not know.  But can we not put Ted Kennedy's name on it?  How about Walter Mondale?  Even Dukakis... anything but Kennedy...

10.  Let's see how long "health care is an imperative" remains their moral guiding stick.  I give 'em - a year.  The rest of us - will pay for our health care like we always have - working.

For those of us who have been declaring that North Korea and Iran work together - here is the proof.  The question is, taking two weeks to report the above, what arms did make it to Iran?

Link

And we can probably count that the emails being sent are not in support of socialized medicine.

Here is one time clearly - the President, with or without a prompter, cannot talk his way out of a sinking situation.

Link

If you want to govern, you have to win elections.  If you want to win elections, you have to think.  In my old days of debate we were taught that the best way to keep people from thinking - fluster them, make them become passionate.

The other day I posted "The Politics of Anger", a simple piece purporting the need for the President to call upon a nation of civility.  I was amazed that just some hours later, former Governor Palin released a message through Facebook - calling on civility.  Maybe - she wants to do more than win kudos?

Several of the entries posted here and on my blog are based upon what the Conservative movement should do or say - to win the hearts and souls of Americans.  When the party in power does not take the leadership - the opposition has the chance to seize the upper hand, such as a call on the President - to call for civility.

1.  Say something different.  Say it in a new way

In public speaking we are constantly reminded (of an actual study) that a listening audience only cares 10% about your message.  Meaning, 30% of attention is geared at vocal tone and 60% is viewed through body language.  So while message is important - who is saying it and how it is being said weighs much more.

For example, we could have hit the Presidential Health Care plan - through civility.  Asking the question, "if this administration will allow and purport such unrest - how will it administer health care?"  Calling upon the President to be the President - diminishes his position and power in the Oval Office.  You want to weaken the President's big-government platform?  Then, call on him to lead in current areas where he is not.

2.  Allow the Young to Fly.

Speaking of "delivering the message", it is time to see some old guard step back - and a new guard emerge.  We do not have time for the "young to pay their dues."  The Millennial generation, by all studies, are Conservatives waiting to happen.  The problem is - few are able to communicate to them our ideals.

Having Twitter and Facebook does not make you a YGen communicator any more than having the latest tools makes you a mechanic.  We have to push communicators to the front - who can communicate to this generation.

3.  Purport Ideals, think Strategically, and allow Talk Radio to do its job.

Passion is great.  Passion is the fuel in winning elections.  Passion gets the voters out, whoops up the audience, and leaves us with historical lines of rhetoric.  Passion alone - cannot win.  Every losing candidate for major public office - has been passionate.

With passion, you have to have something to say - ideals.  And you have to break those ideals down into three basic categories that are easy for everyone to understand.  Ideals do not include Michelle Obama's shoes, if the Obama children are unwisely wearing Peace Symbols over seas, or if the President smokes.  Ideals are the basic three for which Conservatives believe.  Ideals are based upon our founding documents.  Ideals are never changing (Reagan said in 1984 what he said in 1964). Take the passion level and take it back to the basics for which we stand.

And when speaking passionately about our ideals - you better have a strategist in the room.  You have to have a roadmap to win.  A strategy for conservatives goes way beyond name calling.  Right now I get the feeling that there is no strategy, there is only respond, react, and retaliate.  And there are the "three r's" of losing elections.

And then you have talk radio (audience numbers proving our country is still center-right) - our friend.  Allow those professionals to be the front line, to make the charges, to talk about things ... that candidates should not.  They can lead a charge on one front, while candidates push ideals and better plans.

Conclusion, I am by nature a passionate person.  And goodness knows we need some passion for the conservative ideals.  Yet to govern - we still have to win elections.  And to win elections - you have to mold the passion into a strategy.  Kudos are what you get - when someone connects with your passion.  Votes are what you get - when you mold the passion into strategy.

For some time I have attempted to write this entry.  I would type, read, delete, take off on rabbit trails - and delete more.  I looked at the "Politics of Anger" entry from every angle: Declaration - to Richard Nixon.  As I wrote from every one of those angles, I kept thinking to myself, "something is missing."

Only tonight, while not thinking about the entry, did it hit me what was missing from my thought process - the President.

I had been writing from the mindset that you and I as conservatives need to step above the the politics of "divide and conquer."  That we need to forgo name calling - for our ideals are better.  Our ideals win the day.  However, those thoughts are for another entry - another day.

What has been missing from my observations of the most recent town hall meetings, the acidic level of current American politics, and the brewing hatred that will only lead to more violence - the President.  As President of the United States, the ability of the Oval to set or change the mood of the country - is undeniable.  The question is - why is he not doing so?  Why is he not changing the moral compass, directing ALL Americans to the ideas of free speech, of freedom from tyranny, or simply setting a tone of civility?  Is this not the President, who as a candidate, did nothing but harp on the need for bipartisanship?  Yet his White House is telling Democrats to "hit back twice as hard."  Forget bipartisanship - give me civility, give me decent dialogue, give me the transparency that we were promised.  The only answer to the above:  politics.

Four things the President needs to do in order to change the current tone of our country:

1.  Address from the Oval Office.

Why not?  After all it is a new month, and he has yet to call a press conference.  And in all sincerity - a fifteen minute oval address via YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and whatever television network will still air him could make a major difference.  The President is to be the moral tone and leader of a nation.  An address calling upon the greatness within Americans, the vision of dialogue cast by the Fore Fathers, and the hope of a country to agree to disagree - could begin the process of changing the tone.

The President, in a time before violence worsens, needs to use the full power of the Oval Office - to bring about civility.

2.  Call upon his White House, Democratic leadership, and supporters of the Democratic platform (i.e. the SEIU) to condemn and discourage hostile activity.

The recent tone of the President has clearly been utter frustration.  The lofty readings of hope and change seem to be a distant memory.  All of that rhetoric has been replaced with "clean up after them", "keep their mouths shut", and "hit back twice as hard."  The President needs to call upon his party, his followers, to "travel a higher road."  He must make clear that America is a nation of ideals - not fists.  That we weigh our strength not in our union letters, our election victories, but in measured and controlled power.

The President needs to rebuke his Speaker of the House by clearly stating that protesters are not "un-American" (or Nazis) but that those who wage violence have no place in the debate of ideals.

3.  Full weight of the Justice Department.

After discouraging and condemning violence, the President needs to make clear that HIS Justice Department will uphold all applicable law, support local, state, and federal authorities with all arrests and prosecutions, concerning the violence.  Enforcement of law must take place to send a clear message that violence, in any form, is not and will not be tolerated.

Maybe instead of sifting through Bush records, the President needs to help AG Holder realign his priorities.  And maybe instead of collecting "fishy" emails - they need to be collecting names of the unlawful violators for assistance in prosecution.

4.  Change the White House message for one week.  Hit the road pushing:  civility

I am amazed that it has not dawned on Axelrod that the rhetoric that got him his current job - could secure his job in the future!  IF the White House would pull out and dust off the old "hope and change" rhetoric - it might actually do something more than snow Americans.  That rhetoric could change a tone from acidic politics of anger to - civility.

The White House needs change up the game plan.  They need to spend some of my tax dollars flying around the country - restoring peace before things really take a dark turn.  The mix of current White House rhetoric will only serve as gasoline on fires that are simmering.  If this President "wants to do the right thing" as he always states - then restore civility to the debate on Health Care.  

(Here is a good place to insert the argument - they cannot restore civility to the debate - because they lose the debate of Health Care on ideas alone.  Passionate people are not always a clearly thinking people.  And maybe that is the silent overtone of this whole entry?)

We must expect our elected leaders, the President, to step above and point our nation towards civility.  The President must make it clear that common citizens, everyday tax payers, can not and must not be brutalized and intimidated.

Now why would I care what this current White House does with their message, their handling of the recent violence, or the "hope and change" rhetoric?  Because this is not about politics.  This is about our country.  This is not about 2010 or 2012.  This is about the moral leadership of a nation and the tone being set for a country.  This is not about conservatives or liberals - this is about right and wrong.  And the last time I checked - that still is a cornerstone of our freedom.

Mr. President:  those who wish ill or violence, from either side of a debate, cannot be tolerated.  Mr. President - you must show up in this moment.  You must lead.

Tonight, in his last ditch pitch for health care "reform", the President is going to tell us that his administration - rescued the economy.  This comes straight from the mouth of Chief-of-Staff, the ever entertaining,  Rham Emanuel.

Emanuel told the New York Times that the President would use tonight (yet another press conference) to give a six month report card on "how we rescued the economy from the worst recession."

If this is rescue, what is drowning?

A quick review of the current economic situation shows unemployment way above all predictions with no signs of slowing down, our federal government spending money on borrowed time, and states officially declaring themselves - bankrupt.  What else about this economy? Inflation will soon be doubling, taxes on small business are set to increase, and we are cutting the amount given back on tax returns for a charitable donation meaning that in the next year - those who help our society - will be helpless.

And this is what Rham calls rescue?

Here is the link to the full story:

Link