Sunday, August 24, 2014

Saperstein's Proposal Might Create Problems for Obamabatts

Yesterday, on ABC's website, I noted a blogger who referred to
the Tea Party as "right wing nut cases and kooks!" It demonstrates how the left continues to harbor misnomers about "who" actually makes up the Tea Party movement. I guess it is rather complicated.

This opinion is not unique. 30-35% of the American population continues to stand with Barack Obama. True, there are two million less Americans working full time than in 2008. Yes, the debt is spiraling out of control. No question that the foreign policy is becoming unraveled worldwide. With a doubt, the borders are less secure that at any time in recent memory. The fact is, "none of this would be happening if it were not for "malcontents" too stubborn to see the light!

To these devout "Obamabatts" things are proceeding in the right direction. Anyone who questions the judgment of their "hero" is a racist. If you're still not convinced, take it from an expert: Al Sharpton. The only problem in the country are some "kooky, wing nuts" in mainly Southern states who are "dumbing down" the rest of America.

On August 13th, an interesting revelation came into light. On "Gamechanger Salon," a closed Google group of Progressive organizers, reporters and campaign apparatchiks, led by Guy Saperstein, said they would support the South seceding. Saperstein is a major Democrat supporter and part owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball team.

Saperstein surmised, "For more than 100 years, the South has been dumbing down national politics, tilting the country in a conservative direction, supporting militarism, all while demanding huge financial subsidies from blue states.

"It would be 100% fine with me if the South were a separate nation, pursuing it's own policies and destiny." he added.

In an email thread from the previous October, Saperstein was discussing a Michael Lind story on Gamechanger entitled, "The South is holding America Down."

Saperstein is also a former president of the Sierra Club Foundation and former member of the Democracy Alliance. The Democracy Alliance is a shadowy group of wealthy liberals who direct donations to progressive causes and organizations.

"I thought it was an impressive(albeit tough) big picture political strategy and proscription," Gamechanger member, John Stahl wrote.

"My comment was not made in jest at all." Saperstein continued. "Could we just let the South secede? Secession would be a gradual process, giving any blacks who felt threatened time to relocate.

"Civil rights victories would not be lost for any blacks willing to relocate and the ones who relocated would do much better in their new environments." he added.

Progressives often smear the Tea Party as "treasonous Neo-Confederates," begging them to secede and take their undesirable politics with them. How convicted is the Professional Left toward Southern secession? Nobody truly knows.

What we do know is, "be careful what you wish for!"

For starters, the Tea Party is not confined to the South. It is a grassroots collection of Americans who seek a better America. "Better" equates to more fiscal sanity in government, more economic opportunity, respect worldwide, and greater security at home.

The Tea Party's view of "better,"in the eyes of Al Sharpton and other Democrat leaders amounts to "better segregated in an effort to keep the black man down." The South is that "glorious bastion of white supremacy."

Like Sharpton, this ABC blogger failed to grasp the true depth of the grassroots movement. Maybe it's because few on the far left have taken the time to breakdown "who" actually makes up the Tea Party. It's really not that difficult.

The original Tea Party was all about "fiscal conservatism." There are several Tea Parties nationally. I recall Tea Party Patriots publishing a blogging axiom: "No discussion on social issues, only fiscal issues." In short, they would not publish comments relating to "abortion, gay marriage or immigration."

The initial membership was not confined to the Republican Party. Democrats and especially Independents joined! The 2010 midterms reflected these new members!

Then came 201l. Slowly, the Tea Parties became co-oped. Libertarians, seeking a home, muscled in, on the wings of their champion, Ron Paul. Today, it is believed that 20% or more Americans consider themselves Libertarians. They are in all 50 states.

Many of these Independents who became Tea party members can be classified as "Reagan Democrats." They support a Progressive Tax system. But, they also support overturning Roe versus Wade and a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a "union between a man and a woman."

Some of these new members ultimately moved on from the Tea Party, landing with Glenn Beck's 9/12 project. They chose to focus on Agenda 21 and the threat of a one-world government. Many of these member were later referred to by the left as "Tevanglicals." To the standard Democrat atheist, their faith based passion qualified them for a "wing nut," distinction.

While a large number of "Reagan Democrats" live in the South, they too are coast-to-coast. It is believed that "Reagan Democrats" constitute an much as 10% of the population. Coupled with Republican Social Conservatives, the
total tabulation may exceed 25%.

The original members, AKA "the fiscals" care little about abortion or gay rights. They want to rein in government spending. They favor a "balanced budget amendment," and seek to "reduce the size, scope and cost" of the federal government.

Sprinkled throughout the Tea Party movement are the "10thers." These are "strict constructionist conservatives," such as Texas Governor, Rick Perry, who take a literalistic view of the 10th amendment.

When broken down accurately, the Tea Party doesn't look like anything, save "red blooded, patriotic Americans!" So what's the rub?

Evidently Saperstein, this ABC blogger, Sharpton and others have concluded that the
Tea Party is nothing more than a fringe element of "right wing nut cases and racists, mostly confined to the South." To attain true social justice for all, maybe it's best that these "misguided reprobates" simply depart quietly in the night.

The question becomes, "what states are considered Southern?" If "Southern" translates to "red," we're talking a lot bigger piece of real estate than the eleven states that seceded in 1861!

Let's review the map for a moment.

By excluding "Cook County, Illinois, Wayne County, Michigan, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin and Cayahoga County, Ohio, the Midwest becomes solidly "red." Those living in the remaining counties could "hermetically seal," or "cordon off" those counties from the remainder of the state, requiring a visa for entry.

Remove Philadelphia County from Pennsylvania and another solidly "red" state results. If you divide New York west of the 75th parallel of longitude and north of the 43rd parallel lattitude, you have still another "red" state. Both "red" Pennslyvania and "red" New York would hold populations comparable to North Carolina.

Did anyone study Tim Draper's idea of "six Californias?" I did! It's a certainty that South California, Central California and Jefferson, would join the "red" states! There are 16 million people living in these three Californias!

Would we be disporportionate in population? Maybe. But, assuming Saperstein is correct, Black Americans would flood the remaining "blue" states! I am sure that they would be welcomed with opened arms by what remained of America!

Are we getting ahead of ourselves?

Not really. When "blue" states such as Minnesota, Washington, what was left of Oregon and New England pondered their options, one aspect would become apparent: "Their states would be quicly overrun with illegal aliens!" Not to mention "refugees" from "hermetically sealed," Midwestern cities.

States in the west would see "departing with red states," as their only way of not being overrun. Alaskans would consider themselves "liberated!"

It's possible that Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont might ask Canada to annex them. Three-fourths of Maryland's counties would be joined by one or two Delaware counties, eventually petitioning for separate statehood.

Because of the fear of being "swamped" with newcomers,the transformation would take place in months, not years.

Be careful what you wish for!

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Travis County Indictment Reflects Dems Double Standard

Malice cannot be proven.

This is the most significant axiom learned in any Communications Law course.

Therefore, Democrats should not be surprised when their claim that Texas Governor, Rick Perry's alleged abuse of power isn't upheld. It could ultimately blow up in their face!

April 12th, 2013 Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg shook the very fabric of Austin's Democrat Establishment with an untimely D.W.I.. Yes, the D.A. was drunk. Very drunk, registering three times the required legal limit! Worse still, she resisted arrest, spewing threats and accusations at local law enforcement officials during her incarceration.

According to Lehmberg, she had consumed "only two glasses of wine." The opened bottle of vodka found in her car suggested otherwise.

To listen to her drunken drivel, it was clear that, in her mind, her arrest was intentional. Someone was out to ruin her career. Never mind the fact that there were calls complaining about her "driving all over the road." Fortunately for Lehmberg, nobody was injured.

Eventually, the D.A. pled guilty, serving 22-days of a 45-day sentence. Rick Perry asked her to resign. She refused. By law, he couldn't fire her. The question that lead to this past weekend's indictment, "could Perry's subsequent threat to veto funding of the "Public Integrity Unit," be an abuse of power? If so, he could face up to 109 years in prison.

The left leaning, Texans for Public Justice government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint. State Democrats were were quick to pick up on it. State DNC Chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa called for Perry's resignation. Yet, former Obama advisor, David Axelrod admitted that the charges were "pretty sketchy." State GOP Chairman, Steve Munisteri said, "a politically motivated prosecution" yielded the indictment.

In truth, the Travis County Grand Jury was overwhelmingly stacked with Democrats. Austin is said to be a "liberal island in the midst of a conservative sea." Under the Texas Constitution, Perry had every right to veto funding of the Public Intregrity Unit, which he did. The question that looms is "did Perry have the right to threaten a veto, in the event that Lehmberg refused to resign?"

Veto threats are used constantly by Chief Executives, from Presidents down. Lehmberg's behavior was unbecoming of her office. The jail video led to an investigation of Lehmberg by a separate grand jury. It determined that she should not be removed for official misconduct.

Perry called the allegation, "a farce." He stated, "I think Americans and Texans who have seen the video would agree that this is not the type individual who should be heading up an office that we want to fund." Perry said in an August 16th press conference. "I wholeheartedly and unequivocally stand behind my veto." Perry added that he would have not vetoed the funding had Lehmberg resigned.

Why didn't Lehmberg simply resign? Had she done so, Perry would have appointed a Republican to fill her position. Lest we forget, under her stewardship, the Public Intregity Unit wrongly indicted Tom Delay. Although Delay was eventually acquitted, his career was ruined. They also indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson who, like Delay, proved innocent of charges.

In short, this is partisan politics at the very worst. Most Americans should be outraged by it. To suggest that Perry wanted Lehmberg out, so that he could appoint a Republican, is presumptious. After personally reviewing the video,I concluded that this women should have resigned unconditionally.

The highly partisan Lehmberg was in process of spearheading another "Delay-Hutchinson" style witch hunt. It concerned alleged misappropriation of funds in the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Something unexpected took place. Lehmberg got busted for drunk driving! Then she resisted arrest. Her antics were seen all over local television. As one Travis County Democrat admitted, "Lehmberg was raked over the coals by party bosses for her actions." Yet, she remained in office. In essence "lip service and a mild slap on the wrists!"

Did Perry indeed abuse his power? His attorney, David L. Botsford didn't think so, stating that he was "outraged and appalled" at the decision.

"This clearly represents political abuse of the court system and there is no legal basis in this decision." Botsford added.

Still, Special Prosecutor, Michael McCrum will evaluate the indictment. "I took into account that we're talking about a Governor of a state-and a Governor of the state of Texas, which we all love." McCrum said. "Obviously that carries a lot of importance. But when it gets down to it, the law is the law."

Which translates into "what?" It can obviously go either way.

Conservatives can and will rally behind Perry. Lehmberg is a partisan hack who is, based on her liquor store receipts, a drunk. Perry's request for her resignation was the correct one. His refusal to fund any office headed by her made sense, especially considering the office was all about "ethics!."

Had Democrats had been truly interested in maintaining the Public Integrity Unit, they would have pressured Lehmberg to resign. This, they didn't do. Hence, we can conclude that the state Democrats cared only about keeping a Democrat in that position. Nothing more.

Should the case go against Perry, there could an outrage so prolific that the entirely credibility of the criminal justice system could become suspect. In reality, the case is absurb.

For grassroots America, Perry represents family, Christianity, opportunity, country, freedom from big government, and old fashioned American values. To Perry supporters, Lehmberg is the "poster child" for today's Democrat Party. She represents everything that conservatives loathe. In their eyes, there never was a case to begin with!

Conversely, if the ruling goes in Perry's favor, as it should, Perry will draw benefits. His decisive action reflects strong leadership ability; something desperately lacking in the current administration.

America is tired of Presidents who check the polls prior to making decisions. They are ready for a Chief Executive who doesn't make "political correctness" the prime consideration. They want courageous, decisive leadership. Perry knew that there would be partisan repercussions from his veto. But he concluded that Lehmberg, based on her actions, was unfit for the post.

Sadly, Texas Democrats missed a golden opportunity to place the state first. Lehmberg's refusal to resign, and her parties reluctance to advocate her resignation, is inconsistent with their plea for Republicans to acquiesce to Democrat demands on the national level.

When assessing Attorney General, Eric Holder's laissez faire approach to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the I.R.S., Travis County's indictment is woefully inconsistent. But wait! Were not all alleged wrong doers in Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the I.R.S. Democrats? And don't forget about immigration! Holder seems to have a tendency to enforce the laws that he personally thinks are just. Who cares about what the laws actually read.

This double standard is at the root of Democrats' credibility. Justice itself is supposed to be blind, never partisan. Americans hate double standards. While the mainstream media has been slow to catch on, their credibility has likewise become suspect. Perhaps it's time for them do their job!

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Contrasting Rick Perry and Ted Cruz

This past weekend Conservatives attending the Red State Convention heard from both Texas Governor, Rick Perry and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. The looming question is "will one or both throw their hat into the 2016 Presidential ring.

Both are Republicans. Both hail from Texas. Both are classified as "Conservatives." From there the similarities become more vague. The most important consideration amounts to "readiness" to step in and effectively take the reins of a troubled nation.

Ted Cruz is simply not ready to be President. From an ideology perspective, he says all of the right things. But, he lacks Executive experience. Also remaining are questions revolving around Cruz' "conservative orientation."

We know that he worked on Dubya's election campaigns, which isn't a problem. But, didn't he support Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial primary? We know that Perry supported David Dewhurst in the 2012 Senate primary. So what's the deal?

Whether you like Perry or not, you know what you are getting. He is a "Constitutional Conservative." His beliefs are "Jeffersonian." In essence, "low taxes, limited government, and more power to the individual states."

While a good man, George W. Bush, like his dad and his brother are "New Conservatives." Neo-Cons support pre-emptive wars, international peace treaties, favor big government, and have strong CFR ties. Is Cruz a "Constitionalist" like Perry, or a "Neo-Con" like the Bushes?

There is also the question of how either would perform in the general election. Many "blue blood" Republicans look down their noses at Perry. He is a graduate of Texas A & M. The last President who did not hail from an Ivy League school was Ronald Reagan.

Cruz is both a Princeton and Harvard graduate. His academic achievements have drawn accolades from both Republicans and Democrats. Unlike Perry, who is fifth generation Texan, Cruz was born in Canada.

Some Republicans, especially those from the Northeast, simply don't totally trust Perry. He was, after all, a Democrat. In fact, he was the Texas campaign manager for Al Gore's failed 1988 Presidentional campaign. Perry insiders are quick to say, "how Gore's political views changed dramatically" between 1988 and 2000.

Also, brushed under the Rug by Democrats is the fact that Perry broke rank and voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and Bush the Elder in 1988.. He was one of the millions of "Reagan Democrats," who were referred to as "Boll Weevils" in the late eighties.

Perry greatly angered Texas Democrats when he refused to endorse the Dukakis-Benson ticket. Following the election, he left the party, returning home to Paint Creek to assist his father on the farm. It was there that he was recuited by Karl Rove to switch parties and challenge Democrat incumbent, Jim Hightower for Commissioner of Agriculture.

Perry has been Governor of Texas 14 years. He also served two years as Lt. Governor and eight years as Commissioner of Agriculture. Yet, his time as a farmer and as an Air Force Captain spans longer than that!

Cruz is a different generation. At this point, he is as untested as Barack Obama was in 2008. While an excellent debator and "rabble rouser," Republicans still do not know what they are truly getting.

Odds are, the Democrat opponent will be Hillary Clinton. Clinton has no record to run on. But, she will have a massive war chest. This translates to a "scare campaign" against a supposed "right wing ideologue." Like Rand Paul, Cruz is the ideal opponent to demagogue, thanks to a comparitively "thin resume."

Perry has a "thick resume." He could easily turn the campaign into "what I have accomplished as Governor of Texas" and "what you have failed to accomplish in every post that you have held.." This would not bode well for Democrats!

Cruz could greatly help Perry mobilize Tea Party voters. But his chances of beating Clinton in a general electon would be minimal. Perry can, at least, turn the election into a "report card" campaign; his versus Hillary's. He can accurately position himself as the "Washington outsider."

Much, if not most of America is disgusted with Washington. Yet, they have learned that "a fresh face" can have consequences if that "face" lacks the necessary seasoning.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Not All Democrats Sold on Hillary

This past week, tremors were felt from California Governor, Jerry Brown's domain. Could it be? Is the 78-year-old icon considering throwing his hat into the 2016 Presidential arena?

Could be. While Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to be the 2016 nominee, the deal isn't quite sealed. There are reasons why.

Richard Kim, the Editor in Chief of "The Nation," wrote, "Anointing Clinton now isn't just anti-democratic; it paints a big sign on the party's door: No New Ideas Here."

This obviously is cause for concern within some Democrat circles. Hillary leads in every poll. Even Fox News is showing her with double digit leads. DNC National sees Hillary Clinton as the logical successor to their enlightened hero, Barack Obama. The lure of the first female President. Bill's wife. Huge Warchest. Could it possibly get any better?

Evidently it could get a lot better, at least for some in the party! Jerry Brown has always been a rabble rouser. But his purist liberalism connects with many within the Democrat base. He has never been shy about seeking the nomination. Odds are, this might be his last hurrah.

3000 miles to the East, Elizabeth Warren has a growing buzz regarding her possible candidacy. As Kim longed, "Senator Warren, your country calls!"This is the same Elizabeth Warren who advocated the $25 per hour minimum wage.

Governor Brown, AKA "Moonbeam" has been around a long time. Amid his flamboyant rhetoric, a case could be made that on sheer experience and competence, he is one up on Hillary! Brown does have Executive experience. It's fact that his state is the nation's largest, the home of 35 million souls.

Wall Street shudders with the very notion of either Brown or Warren as the Democrat nominee! To many Democrats, Hillary represents the status quot. Remaining are unsolved problems, coupled with unanswered questions. It begins with how Middle America is currently doing.

According to Berkeley economist, Emmanuel Saez, "the top one percent captured 95% of all income gains in the so-called recovery. The bottom 99% percent barely gained at all."

Yet this was during Obama's watch. Why conclude that a Hillary Clinton administration would not arrest this trend? According to Peter Beinart of the Daily Beast, in an article written on "the Rise of the New Left," Millennials are facing "scacer job prospects, lower wages, fewer benefits and a weaker social safety net."

In a climate that exhibits unrest among American youth, according to Kim, it is "hard to imagine a Democrat of national statue more ill equipped to speak to this Populist mood than Hillary Clinton."

Enter Moonbeam and the Professor!

It's probable that RNC national would be licking it's chops at the prospect of either unseating Hillary! Together, things get real interesting! Let's dig a little deeper.

The Democrat party has balled itself into a tight fist. They talk about the Tea Party's rigidity. They should look into the mirror. You can especially see it manifested in the global warming debate.

Even though evidence crumbles daily, these "true believers" continue to live in Al Gore's fantasy world. While Gore flies around the globe in his private jet, pausing only for brief respites at his Malibu mansion, they remain convinced. Never once was it imagined that the former V.P.'s "Incovenient Truth" was really about his own personal convenience!

Hillary Clinton is a Progressive. By daughter Chelsea's words, "more progressive" than Bill. She has been on the correct side of every Progressive issue. But she is still suspect with much of the Democrat base. Maybe it has to do with her close affiliation with Wall Street and the Fortune 500 companies.

Democrats are quick to chide and ridicule Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz. But they fail to see the parallels. There are arguably as many ideologues on the left as on the right.

Growing evidence suggests that global warming at best is "an exaggeration, at worst, a hoax."

Obamacare is a disaster, with unimagined problems. It is truly a plethora of broken promises, based on faulty data.

The border crisis is growing with consequences still unknown. Their "hero" continues to turn a deaf ear to Rick Perry's pleas for help!

Our military is weaker than ever.

Our national prestige is slipping world wide.

Most American's are living from pay check to pay check.

In total, there are two million fewer Americans working than in 2008.

College tuition is out of sight for most Americans.

Could America expect better from Moonbeam and/or the Professor?

Evidently their supporters think so! The question becomes, do either Brown, Warren or Clinton have a grasp of the true problems facing the country? They think that they do. But is America buying it?

This will be the argument that Republicans must win if they are to reclaim the White House. It starts with the proclamation that these mostly "warmed over ideas from the seventies" haven't worked!

Our nation is literally "suffocating" from regulations. Both our Interal Revenue Service and our Environmental Protection Agency have been partisan arms of the Administration. It was 1861 when the nation was as ideologically divided as it is today.

The political left will have it's differences. There will be considerable clamor for change and a new Populist direction. In the end, however, it will be "same song, second verse!"

"Wealth redistribution with protection for the limited few."

"Socialism for the rest of America."