What it is ain’t exactly clear.

I’ve had a great time reading and listening to all the various pundits struggle to explain what happened in South Carolina yesterday. From the network newsheads to our own Mike “gamecock” DeVine ( SC teaches its gamecock a lesson: Newt is acceptable ), they’re trying to come to grips with the fact that a candidate with supposedly fatal flaws has captured the hearts and minds of the conservative electorate. How could we possibly vote for a filandering egomaniac who was booted from House leadership for ethics violations?

I’ve often found myself wondering why I have always admired Newt Gingrich. I know I liked it when he stood up to Pesident Clinton, a serial filanderer, and forced a government shutdown. Whether the confrontation was handled effectively is open for debate, but I sure would have liked having someone with the stones to shut down the covernment negotiating these debt increases lately! And maybe that’s it. Stones. and stones beget the roar. What roar, you ask? Read C. Edmund Wrights fine analysis over at American Thinker.

Mr. Wright says it far better than I ever could:

…what  the voters are craving in the debates and on the stump is someone who can look  liberals squarely in the eye and tell them why we are right and they are  wrong.  The American conservative base has had to put up with being called  stupid, racist, greedy and unfair for decades by not only the Democrats but the  vast majority of the media.  The pent up frustration of these decades is  magnified by the fact that George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John  McCain would not or perhaps could not confront this.

In  fact, rare is the Republican candidate at any level who refuses to put up with  this and fights back.  When they do, they become sensations.  Even  Chris Christie and Donald Trump — neither one a real conservative — earned the  love of the Republican base by simply deigning to fight back.  Marco Rubio  and Allen West are far more popular and well known than they have any right to  be simply because they refuse to accept the argument on liberals’ terms.   They fight.  They elicit the roar.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/psst_hear_the_roar_and_pay_attention.html#ixzz1kEAgB5pG

That’s what I’ve always admired about Newt. He’s a fighter. For all of his other faults, he’s like a little bantam rooster. I don’t need a perfect candidate, I don’t need a saintly candidate and I don’t need a pretty candidate. I need a candidate who believes in the American people, in small government and in free and open markets. I need that candidate to be competent and intelligent. But above all, I need candidate who’s not afraid of a brawl and “who can look  liberals squarely in the eye and tell them why we are right and they are  wrong.”

I need a candidate who elicits the roar.

Rick Perry could have and should have been that guy.

But he’s gone now and neither Santorum nor Romney can elicit the roar.

Newt’s the man.

Most of you are familiar with the “work rooms” that the UAW used to keep people on the payroll even when there was no work to do. I say “used to use”, I have no evidence to indicate that they have stopped the practice. However, common sense would dictate that after accepting billions of dollars from taxpayers to stay afloat, they might do away with somethin most Americans reviled when they heard about it.

But I digress.

It appears that another shining example of economic and business mismanagement, the United States Postal Service, had negotiated the same idiotic concession with the American Postal Workers Union (APWU). The union apparently felt that it was in the taxpayers best interest to have underemployed postal workers sit in a “stand-by room” for as many as eight hours a day because management had nothing productive for them to do. All the while, collecting full pay and benefits, of course.

The employees are not happy about it at all. Managers have the nerve to ask them to read Postal Service training materials while they sit on their @$$es. Many managers won’t allow them to sleep, read books, watch TV or play video games.

Read all the sordid details here:

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=4265826

The US Postal Service, funded by our tax dollars, negotiated this deal. Do you really think we can expect any better from those setting up federal healthcare? How many other local, state and federal government employee unions have the same benefit?

A letter to the editor in today’s Las Vegas Review-Journal, titled “Hand Out”,

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/57603302.html

got me a little riled up and I simply had to respond:

To the editor:

I want to thank Paul Gwin, of Las Vegas, for pointing out, in a very clear and concise manner, what is wrong with America today. In his letter to the editor, posted this past Sunday, September 6^th, Paul quoted Richard Secrist, of Mesquit, NV.

Apparently, in a letter to the editor, Mr. Secrist wrote, “You can call it socialized medicine if you want, I don’t care. Just give it to me.” Mr. Gwin adds, “Me too!”

Just give it to me. Messers Secrist and Gwin could care less what you call their hand out, just give it to them.

The source of Mr. Gwin’s enthusiasm is the contention by Mr. Secrist, and the rest of the me-first progressive movement, that “there is no doubt the government can do it cheaper.” Cheaper for whom?  Our heroes obviously don’t care who pays for their hand out either.

Then there’s this laugher: “The rest of the civilized governments are supplying all of their citizens with medical care at far less cost than our private insurance companies do for fewer than two-thirds of our citizens.” Fewer than two-thirds?

Even if you use the highly inflated Census Bureau number of, 47 million uninsured, it works out to 85% of Americans with access to affordable health care. Of those, polls show 90% are satisfied with their health insurance and care. Two-thirds? Oh, I know, facts are such inconvenient things the left.

If you throw out the millions who already qualify for health care hand outs and, for what ever reason, don’t sign up, illegal aliens who should go home and petition their own government for healthcare handouts, and you end up with about 10 to 15 million people without insurance. For this minority of can’ts or won’ts we should allow the government to control all aspects of healthcare? Really? There’s no better way to get these folks covered? Which, we DO NEED TO DO, by the way. Just not this way.

We should reduce government’s involvement in healthcare, not increase it. Government regulations which prohibit shopping for insurance across state lines, drive up cost. There are large areas of the country covered by only one or two providers because of these laws, which eliminates competition and creates minor monopolies. Eliminating these intra-state restrictions would cost us …nothing! And, it would reduce costs dramatically.

Eliminate mandatory coverage’s. Let consumers decide what they want covered and what they don’t. What if we all had to pay for full coverage auto insurance, whether we needed it or not? It would drive up cost. What if we all had to have certain levels of life insurance coverage? It would drive up costs. Why should I have to pay so you can have your Viagra? And, eliminating mandatory coverage’s costs, …wait for it…, that’s right, nothing!

Eliminate the need for the billions of dollars spent on defensive medicine by enacting reasonable tort reform. Even a simple move to a “loser pays” system, would reduce unreasonable malpractice suits. Putting a reasonable cap on punitive damage awards, would also bring down costs, without denying patients the right to sue for legitimate claims.

Mr. Gwin goes on to ask, “Is it socialized medicine if democratically elected congressmen control it? We can vote them out in the next election if we don’t like how it’s handled. What control do we have now…?”

Exactly how many of Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson socialist handout policies have been voted out of existence? Social security? No it’s just going broke, and Washington has its collective head in the sand. Medicare? This knee slapper of a policy from President Johnson’s administration should be the example for why we don’t want government running healthcare. It was sold to us the very same way as the current public option forty years ago, and is a warning for what is to come if we let the government expand Medicare to cover the whole population. It already has over $30 trillion in unfunded liabilities!  

The British Healthcare Service employs something like 1.3 million people. It is the third largest employer in the world. Remember, these public servants are “in” the system, and probably get much better access to healthcare than regular Britons. Do anyone really think those folks are going to vote their jobs out of existence? Really? Would you?

Yeah, we can change our minds later. Mr. Gwin, I have some beach front property for sale near Ely…

Mr. Gwin would do well to realize that the reason we don’t have more individual choice and control of the cost and quality of health insurance, is because the government has intruded in the marketplace. If they had not, health insurance would not be an “employment benefit.” This “employer benefit” was created by progressives in the 1930’s to lure reluctant workers into wage controlled industries (which they had destroyed through regulation). If they had not interfered, Mr. Gwin would be able to choose from all of the thousands of health insurance providers throughout the country, instead of just two or three (if you’re lucky). If the government had not interfered, the insurance companies would need to compete for his business with better service and lower prices because of the shear volume of competitors. If they had not interfered, Mr. Gwin would be able to custom tailor his health insurance policy according to his families needs and budget. He wouldn’t be forced to buy the coverage that the government currently mandates. Real competition would mean that companies who dropped sick customers would not be able to attract new ones. Companies that restricted access to care unreasonably would not survive.

But, even with all that interference, he’d still have choices. He can choose to opt out of any health plan. He can pay for routine care (read: oil changes) out of pocket, and buy a much cheaper catastrophic policy for the serious stuff. He can start a medical savings account. He has choices, but he’d have many more if he trusted the market place a little more and the nanny state a little less.

What choice will Mr. Gwin’s beloved “public option” provide? When he disagrees with the Comparative Effectiveness Panel about the medical treatment they will allow, who will he go to? He could probably appeal the government’s decision to the government, but… Sounds kinda fruitless, doesn’t it? He can drop his “public option” and go back to a private insurer. Oh wait, there won’t be anymore private insurers, and if there are, the current law being proposed mandates that they be identical to the “public option” in every way. Well, he could just pay for the treatment that he wants, out of pocket. BUUUZZZZZZT!! Wrong again, that’s not allowed either under the current proposals. What to do, what to do? He’ll suck it up, and get in line with the rest of his comrades and wait patiently for his government hand out.

But none of what I’ve written matters one whit if your approach to life is:

“I don’t care what you call it, just give it to me!”

Rick Liedtke

Henderson, NV

Anyway, that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it!

Let me say, up front that I am not in favor of any government intervention in the private markets other than sensible regulations to ensure a fair playing field for all participants. But, His Majesty, the King,  President Obama obviously believes quite differently.

You would think that, with all of Obama’s talk about understanding the importance of small business and wanting to insure that they succeed and grow, and his willingness to stick his nose where it doesn’t belong, he wouldn’t turn his back on “an important lender to small- and medium-sized businesses.” But the Wall street Journal reports that:

“Ailing business lender CIT said late Wednesday “there is no appreciable likelihood” it will receive fresh government support in the near future.

This is startling because “CIT is a source of financing for thousands of small to medium-sized businesses”, you, know, just the kinds of businesses we should be supporting if we’re going to get into the private sector. But, instead of support, the Obama administration appears to be facilitating the demise of American small business.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090716-712960.html

To bring the importance of this issue into better focus, according to the Chicago Tribune,

“Few consumers realize the influence of CIT Group Inc., but the company’s perilous footing could trip up a huge swath of the business world, affecting everything from holiday season gift choices to payroll at local companies.

CIT lends more than $60 billion to retailers and smaller companies, feeding them the capital they need for operations, purchases and other uses. Despite getting caught up in the credit crunch, it is unlikely to get a government bailout. The White House appears to have decided CIT’s collapse would not represent a knock-out blow to the economy.

In Northfield, the owner of Select Rehabilitation may have to dig into his own pockets to fund the payroll for the company’s 3,000 physical therapists in 20 states. CIT stopped wiring funds to the company Wednesday.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri_cit_0717jul17,0,1042812.story

It’s been widely reported that businesses, in general, and small businesses, in particular, are holding off on hiring and other investments because of a severe lack of available credit.  Now it appears that existing payroll may also be in jeopardy because of the Obama administration’s inaction in this vital marketplace.

The only question is motive.  Is this an attempt by Obama to get more of the private sector under his thumb?  Or, is the a demonstration of his contempt for middle America?

The Las Vegas Sun is a liberal rag along the lines of the New York Times and the Los Angeles times. It’s circulation is somewhat less though. You see the Sun has such wide distribution, that it would be out of business if the editor of the Las Vegas Review Journal did not take pity and inlcude the Sun in it’s distribution operations. The Sun is sort of like the parasitic sucker fish. Brian Greenspun is the leftist editor of the Sun whose editorial in today’s paper finally promted me to write. The editorial in question can be found here: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/12/health-care-debate-goes-who-we-are/

The line that got my dander up is this: When it comes to nationalized health care, “This does not have to be a constitutional debate.”

Here’s my letter:

To the editor:

I don’t normally write letters to the editor of the Las Vegas Sun, or any liberal rag for that matter. I mean, after all, this “newspaper” can’t even support itself and has to be delivered to (forced on) the reader by tucking it into a real newspaper. But this Sunday, Brian Greenspun wrote something that I think is so representative of the liberal statist frame of mind that I simply must respond.

He wrote this about the health care issue: “This does not have to be a constitutional debate.” That’s like saying voter intimidation doesn’t need to be a criminal issue. Oh, wait, the Holder Justice Department has already decided that the Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia last fall doesn’t need to be criminal issue. Despite video evidence and many eye witnesses, all charges dropped. Hmmm. But I digress.

Back to the constitutional debate. Let me remind (instruct?) Mr. Greenspun that the United States Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights is the document that controls our Federal government. It dictates what powers each branch has as well as the overall (limited) scope of the government. So, if the Federal government wants to enact new legislation regarding nationalized healthcare, IT’S A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE!

Mr. Greenspun goes on to project his own constitutional ignorance onto the reader with the following statement: “Besides, what makes some of our readers – or any other news organization’s readers for that matter – think they are experts on the US Constitution?  Supreme courts and constitutional scholars have been grappling with the meaning of the constitution for two centuries and they still don’t have it right.”  Bolding mine. That last line is very telling. You see the leftist statist believes only his interpretation of the constitution is correct. Those of us who believe that the constitution was meant to limit government are dead wrong. Because any other interpretation would not allow for the expansion of government that the statist desires.

The constitution is not difficult to interpret for those willing to try. The framers of the constitution left behind many additional writings that provide clues to the “real” meaning of the constitution. For example;

“The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.” 

Thomas Jefferson

To me this quote has two meanings, 1. Read the freaking bill before you vote on it! And 2. The voters should be fully informed before supporting a government program. As recent political events have shown, neither of the above is happening. Here’s another:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

Thomas Jefferson

Bolding mine. What does this mean? You can’t take property or money from the industrious and give it those that are not as industrious. Why is that a dangerous practice?

“When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Benjamin Franklin

When the statist promises to solve all your problems, they will take all of your liberty.

Then, Mr. Greenspun trots out the straw man argument:  “What kind of America do we want to live in?” and the token religious reference: “…our religious and moral upbringing that says we should treat our neighbors as ourselves, and that we will be judged by how we treat the least among us.”

If Mr Greenspun were truly versed in religion, he would understand that those two ideals apply to individuals, not governments. God has no influence over governments. Mr Greenspun further fails to point out that the majority of people opposed to a nanny state such as he proposes, are conservatives and/or Republicans. Studies show that conservatives give 30% to 50% more to charity than self-described liberals. So we’re giving, just not to the statists in government. And 2/3 of all charitable giving comes from those earning over $200,000 per year. Now why would Mr. Obama want to incentivize those rich people, through increased taxes, to quit giving to charities? Answer: He thinks he can spend their money better and more wisely than they can. Obama is a better judge of who is in need.

As to the “kind of America” I want to live in, I want to live in an America with strong families. I want to live in an America where people make prudent life decisions, like planning for retirement and providing adequate health care for their families. I want to live in an America where people take responsibility for bad decisions. I want to live in an America where people marry and have productive careers before they have children and then live within their means. I want to live in an America where people turn to their families and churches, not government in times of need. I want to live in an America where “times of need” means no food, clothing or shelter, not no big screen tv, IPOD, designer athletic shoes, cell phone, or fancy car.

In my America, we respect the constitution and the rule of law. In my America, the people have the power to succeed or fail based on their own efforts, knowledge and skills. In Mr Greenspuns America, a statist government has the power to ignore the constitution and the rule of law to take from the industrious and prudent to give to those who are not. It’s already happening. Look at the Chrysler, GM and bank takeovers. Look at Cap and Trade, Nationalized Healthcare, EFCA, and how many “czars”?

Yeah, it’s a constitutional debate.

Incredulously,  

Rick Liedtke

Henderson, NV

I am filled with hope for the future of this great country. I am filled with hope that our economy WILL rebound and return to its rightful place as the envy of the world. I am filled with hope that we WILL win the war on terror. That our military WILL remain the strongest and proudest in the world.

I am filled with hope that Israel will NEVER be abandoned by the United States and that we WILL put a stop to Iran’s attempt to dominate the Middle East, and later the world. I am filled with hope that we will once again give the one finger salute to the Chavez’s and Putin’s and Castro’s and Ahmadinnerjackets of the world.

I am filled with hope when I listen to the President, because every time I hear him speak he puts another nail in his own political coffin.  He and his advisers are sooooo wrapped up in his Messiahness that they failed to understand the significance of events like the Republican vote on the stimulus in the House. They forgot or won’t admit that this is a right leaning country, and when the Republicans show historic backbone in opposition, Americans take notice.

I am filled with hope because they failed to rethink their Guantanamo strategy after the executive order ordering it closed immediately, uh.. within a year, uh… we’ll get back to you. The polls showed Americans overwhelmingly disagreed with that move. So what do they do as a follow-up? Drop all charges against the maggot who is responsible for the attack.  A number of the victim’s families refused the One’s invitation to the White House in protest. And, after listening to Fox today, they don’t have much good to say about his Oneness.

I am filled with hope because even though public support for this bill is dropping as fast as Nancy Pelosi’s face lift, HE DISRESPECTS THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THE BILL!  In public, on TV, after saying he was at the event because he needed and excuse to go for a joy ride in Air Force One.

I am filled with hope that between the comedy act currently inhabiting the White House and some new-found huevos on the part of Republican congress critters, and the often surprising intelligence of the electorate, we can delay the worst of the damage until we can start to retake control in 2010.

Unless he remembers where he forgot his reality glasses, his Oneness is going to be a one term wonder. With Michael Steele at RNC and some of the stars we have as Governors and even in the congress to choose from as a nominee, we’ll get the White House back in 2012.

I am filled with hope.

Regular viewers of the Fox News prime time line up will agree, I think, that over the last week or two, O’Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, and Greta, have all begun to lean a little to the right in their content and commentary. More so than usual, at least.

We’ve been seeing more and more of the Three Rusketeers; Newt, Dick and Karl. And, they’ve really been revving up the rah rah. Especially Dick Morris.

Then there’s the interviews. Tonight it was the John and Cindy hour with Hannity. Great interview, IMO. Last night is was Hasselbeck and Sarah.

Bill O’Reilly’s opening rant the last two nights has been heavily partisan. Last night he let loose with a detailed and devastating description of what an Obama Presidency would really mean.

I think Rupert Murdock has finally said “Enough’s enough!” Hoooah!

P.S. If you haven’t been watching, check it out. Alan looks very unhappy.

This morning, Jim Geraghty at NRO let us know that Senator John McCain is proposing a new version of the Resolution Trust Corp. that helped get us through the savings and loan crisis a few years ago. You can read Jim’s blog here.

Yahoo!announced this afternoon the Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson wants to do exactly what John McCain suggested this morning.

The result of that announcement? The Dow Jones rocketed up 450 points. Since President Bush lifted the Executive Order banning offshore drilling for oil, the price of crude has dropped more than 35%.

Just listen to the markets and you can figure out who’s got it figured out!

I know this is not a diary. I don’t see an open thread today. But this news just hit. Sarah Palin’s private e-mailhas been hacked. Townhall.com has the early details here

I’m sorry. Two 500 errors after I tried to post this, I saw that Moe had beaten me to it. One of the moderators may want to delete this.

Rick

No one. No one is more middle class than Sarah Palin. No candidate, in my admittedly limited political memory, has ever really fit the definition of “one of us”. I always thought that if someone had the “pull”, connections and money to get elected President or Vice President , couldn’t really be one of us.

But Sarah Palin is still one of us. She is a small business owner. She and her husband belong to unions. She has five kids, and all of the common problems that every American family faces. She was on the freaking PTA!

The McCain campaign needs to use her to neutralize all of the identity and class warfare politics that Obama is trying to play. She can reinforce the twin ideas of personal responsibility and accountability. She can talk about what middle class mother face better than anyone. She can talk about the benefits of limited government and lower taxes, and they can’t paint her as out of touch.

I know this is short for a diary, and I apologize. But, I don’t have a lot of time and wanted to get this idea out for discussion.

Sarah Palin just gets better and better.

I have long believed that if my father hadn’t intervened during the second grade, I might have grown up a liberal.

In 1961, my dad was transferred to Hickam AFB on the island of Oahu, in Hawaii. I was seven years old. My parents believed in living on the local economy (rather than in base housing) so that we could experience the culture. That worked out great for my mom, as she had quite few Hawaiian friends and even took Hula lessons. I, on the other hand hung out with the other Air Force dependent children who lived in our neighborhood.

We lived in Ewa Beach which was a ferry ride across Pearl Harbor from Hickam. Quite a few Air Force families lived in the area, and I had lots of friends. But, my mom was determined, and during the summer of 1962, she sent my 8 year old butt to a summer camp that was run, staffed and frequented by local Hawaiians. I pleaded not to go. I had had enough experience with Hawaiian kids to know that I wasn’t going to have any fun. They called us white kids, houlies(sp). I’m not sure of the spelling, but I do remember that when any of us heard “Hey, houlie boy!” we knew we best get to steppin’! So, I was in a panic at the thought of spending all day, all summer with these guys.

Read More →

There is an excellent article by A.W.R Hawkins on Human Events today. He talks about why the Democrats are against oil, guns and free speech. It’s not a new thesis to most of us, but I liked his rugged, free American approach to the subject.

Hawkins also stresses the importance of teaching the costs, meanings and benefits of freedom to our children, so that they can clearly see the hidden agenda behind liberal policies. The article can be found here.

And, for me at least, here is the money qoute:

We must get more oil. We must keep our guns. And we must tell our children, our students, and those among whom we live and work that freedom comes from God, not government. As such, it s not the gift of Senators Barrack Obama, Charles Schumer, or Harry Reid, nor is it ours because of the benevolence of Representative Pelosi. Once we get our children, our students, and those among whom we live and work to understand this, we can rest assured in the shared knowledge that freedoms which government cannot give are also freedoms which government cannot take away.

Doing this may not be easy, but “those who want to reap the benefits of this great nation must bear the fatigue of supporting it.” (Thomas Paine)

“I will end this war!” Five simple words. Five one-syllable words that are music to the ears of anti-war nut roots. Yet, at the same time, these five simple words scream defeatism, retreat and capitulation to the millions of moderate and right leaning Americans who don’t like to lose wars. Americans who mourn the outcome of the Vietnam War.

Five words. But, only one has real meaning. End. It has many meanings. It is an ambiguous word. Of course Barack Obama is skilled at stringing together ambiguous words and phrases and speeches. They’re so much easier to use when one needs to deny and deflect past comments.

But, in this context, and in the final analysis, the word ’end’ has only one meaning. One can verbalize that meaning in a number of ways; quit, retreat, capitulate, run, punt, surrender to terrorism or whatever comes to the reasonable mind. At the end of the day we all know what he means.

But, what if he switched that one meaningful word, with another, simple, one-syllable word? A word that, in this context, has only one meaning.

Win

“I will win this war!”

Why can’t he say that? Hell, why can’t any Democrat say that except Senator Lieberman? Are they such cowards, that they find armed conflict so utterly distasteful, that it can’t be dignified by wanting to win it?

Can anyone explain it?

Rick Liedtke