The newest episode of "America's Evil Genius" has hit the internet, and we have a bombshell today...Newt Gingrich has dropped out of the 2012 Presidential race!!!
...of course, Newt doesn't exactly *know* that he's dropped out yet...
In this episode, I analyze Newt's withdrawal from the race (a withdrawal that's obvious to everyone but Newt himself at this point). I also declare Gingrich's political career to be dead, and give it a fitting (not to mention heart-felt and tear-jerking) eulogy. This one will bring a tear to a glass eye...
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Missouri considers amendment to require photo ID at the voting booth--I'm in favor!
With all of the major national stories going on right now (Obama producing a birth certificate, Osama Bin Laden being killed, Snooki showing up at Wrestlemania and *not* blowing half the locker room), we sometimes overlook some very important and thought-provoking local stories. So I wanted to highlight such a story today--My home state of Missouri (properly pronounced "Missour-uh", for those of you who are not natives of the "Show Me State") is considering a Constitutional amendment which will require photo ID to be presented when voting.
Link to news story: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-House-OKs-photo-ID-constitutional-amendment-121144369.html
A bit of background here--back in 2006, a similar law was passed which would have required the photo ID at the voting booth. However, the Missouri Supreme Court struck the law down as being "unconstitutional". Therefore, the State Legislature is going about the business of making such a statute into a Constitutional Amendment, which would keep the State Supreme Court from getting their grubby little hands on it. As of today, the amendment had passed the Senate, passed the House with some changes, and now has to go back to the Senate, and if they pass the amendment in changes, it would appear on the ballot for Missouri voters in 2012.
I'm tremendously encouraged by the prospect of this amendment. Americans are more aware than they've ever been about the possibility of voter fraud--the exposures of ACORN and like-minded organizations has proven that the old phrase, "In Chicago, they say vote early and vote often!" isn't just a joke, it's a reality in many parts of the nation. In addition, we see cases of identity theft each and every day--it seems to me that it wouldn't be a stretch similar politically-motivated thieves could use stolen documentation (presently in Missouri, you can vote with "proof" as insignificant as a utility bill or a bank statement) to "stuff the ballot box". Has it happened in Missouri? Not that I'm specifically aware of--but ACORN and the like have proven that the possibility is out there, and I think it makes sense for a state to take action to prevent such a problem before it occurs. In addition, there is a rising concern within our state regarding Illegal Immigration (Interstate 44 which runs through the state has long been a major artery for trafficking both illegal drugs and Illegal Immigrants, and there are pockets of the state where such Immigrants have settled), so such an amendment may be a necessity to keep these Illegals from wrongly voting in our elections.
The Democrats are opposing this amendment (shocking, ain't it?), arguing that such an amendment would adversely affect minorities and the poor from voting. Now, given how minorities and the poor usually vote, my initial (half-joking/half-serious) reaction to that argument is, "Good". However, in taking the argument on it's own merits, I don't see where it holds water. Driver's Licenses aren't exactly uncommon in Missouri, even among minorities and the poor. Unlike some other places in the country, most people in Missouri--even the poorest of the poor--either have a car or have access to some kind of transportation. It's nearly a necessity to be able to drive in this state, because of the large area that both major cities are laid out over, and the large percentage of the population that live in rural areas. In this state, it's extremely rare to run into someone who doesn't drive (even among the poor and the minorities).
I remember about 12 years back or so, I was doing some work for a marketing firm which had a client who had come to Missouri to do some survey work for an upcoming home equity line of credit project. The clients came from San Francisco, and were shocked to find two things about Missouri--first, that homes (and in some rural areas, some very nice homes) could be purchased for under $100,000, and secondly, that even the poorest people and those with the lowest incomes (including our own employees) owned some form of transportation. The look on their faces when they saw our parking lot filled with the cars of our employees--many of which made $7 or $8 an hour in those days--was amazing to me. And their shock was backed up as they moved forward with the survey work around the state. In San Francisco, where the clients had come from, it was rather common for upwardly mobile people--making well over $100K a year--to never own a car and to take either public transportation or taxis wherever they needed to go. However, Missouri isn't like San Fransisco or New York...it's not nearly as compact, therefore the ability to drive is virtually a necessity for anybody who lives here so that they can hold down a job, get their groceries, and undertake the ordinary tasks of life.
So I've told that long story to make the point that a very low number of the "poor" do not have a Driver's License. And for those few that do not, a State-issued Photo Identification card is not difficult to get. So the "inconvenience" that the poor and the minorities might undergo with such an Amendment is negligible, at best. On the other hand, such an amendment would better insure the integrity of Missouri's elections, and help prevent the fraud that exists (and is even prevalent) in other parts of the nation. When you take the partisan rhetoric out of the equation, I do not see what Missouri could possibly "lose" by enacting such an amendment. The alleged disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities put forth by the Democratic party is a red herring--most of them who are legitimate citizens already have driver's licences, and the few that are left can easily get a photo ID that will be acceptable. The potential risk of voter fraud far outweighs the "risk" of disenfranchised voters in Missouri.
Link to news story: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-House-OKs-photo-ID-constitutional-amendment-121144369.html
A bit of background here--back in 2006, a similar law was passed which would have required the photo ID at the voting booth. However, the Missouri Supreme Court struck the law down as being "unconstitutional". Therefore, the State Legislature is going about the business of making such a statute into a Constitutional Amendment, which would keep the State Supreme Court from getting their grubby little hands on it. As of today, the amendment had passed the Senate, passed the House with some changes, and now has to go back to the Senate, and if they pass the amendment in changes, it would appear on the ballot for Missouri voters in 2012.
I'm tremendously encouraged by the prospect of this amendment. Americans are more aware than they've ever been about the possibility of voter fraud--the exposures of ACORN and like-minded organizations has proven that the old phrase, "In Chicago, they say vote early and vote often!" isn't just a joke, it's a reality in many parts of the nation. In addition, we see cases of identity theft each and every day--it seems to me that it wouldn't be a stretch similar politically-motivated thieves could use stolen documentation (presently in Missouri, you can vote with "proof" as insignificant as a utility bill or a bank statement) to "stuff the ballot box". Has it happened in Missouri? Not that I'm specifically aware of--but ACORN and the like have proven that the possibility is out there, and I think it makes sense for a state to take action to prevent such a problem before it occurs. In addition, there is a rising concern within our state regarding Illegal Immigration (Interstate 44 which runs through the state has long been a major artery for trafficking both illegal drugs and Illegal Immigrants, and there are pockets of the state where such Immigrants have settled), so such an amendment may be a necessity to keep these Illegals from wrongly voting in our elections.
The Democrats are opposing this amendment (shocking, ain't it?), arguing that such an amendment would adversely affect minorities and the poor from voting. Now, given how minorities and the poor usually vote, my initial (half-joking/half-serious) reaction to that argument is, "Good". However, in taking the argument on it's own merits, I don't see where it holds water. Driver's Licenses aren't exactly uncommon in Missouri, even among minorities and the poor. Unlike some other places in the country, most people in Missouri--even the poorest of the poor--either have a car or have access to some kind of transportation. It's nearly a necessity to be able to drive in this state, because of the large area that both major cities are laid out over, and the large percentage of the population that live in rural areas. In this state, it's extremely rare to run into someone who doesn't drive (even among the poor and the minorities).
I remember about 12 years back or so, I was doing some work for a marketing firm which had a client who had come to Missouri to do some survey work for an upcoming home equity line of credit project. The clients came from San Francisco, and were shocked to find two things about Missouri--first, that homes (and in some rural areas, some very nice homes) could be purchased for under $100,000, and secondly, that even the poorest people and those with the lowest incomes (including our own employees) owned some form of transportation. The look on their faces when they saw our parking lot filled with the cars of our employees--many of which made $7 or $8 an hour in those days--was amazing to me. And their shock was backed up as they moved forward with the survey work around the state. In San Francisco, where the clients had come from, it was rather common for upwardly mobile people--making well over $100K a year--to never own a car and to take either public transportation or taxis wherever they needed to go. However, Missouri isn't like San Fransisco or New York...it's not nearly as compact, therefore the ability to drive is virtually a necessity for anybody who lives here so that they can hold down a job, get their groceries, and undertake the ordinary tasks of life.
So I've told that long story to make the point that a very low number of the "poor" do not have a Driver's License. And for those few that do not, a State-issued Photo Identification card is not difficult to get. So the "inconvenience" that the poor and the minorities might undergo with such an Amendment is negligible, at best. On the other hand, such an amendment would better insure the integrity of Missouri's elections, and help prevent the fraud that exists (and is even prevalent) in other parts of the nation. When you take the partisan rhetoric out of the equation, I do not see what Missouri could possibly "lose" by enacting such an amendment. The alleged disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities put forth by the Democratic party is a red herring--most of them who are legitimate citizens already have driver's licences, and the few that are left can easily get a photo ID that will be acceptable. The potential risk of voter fraud far outweighs the "risk" of disenfranchised voters in Missouri.
Friday, April 29, 2011
AEG#10: Birth Certificates, Press Conferences, & Helicopters, Oh my!
Say what you will about Donald Trump, he accomplished what millions of Americans have tried unsuccessfully to do for the last two years...he got Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate.
Well, a birth certificate, anyhow...
However, this ongoing TV drama--entertaining as it may have been--has done nothing to convince me that Donald Trump would be a fitting President in 2012. I still believe that the best way to beat Obama is focus on his record and his decisions--every major decision Obama has made has effectively pissed off the majority of the American People...so why would a dog and pony show focusing on Obama's birth certificate or college records--which could potentially be legit--be a preferable strategy to focusing on his record--a record for which there is no defense?
You'd have to ask Donald Trump...I sure as Hell can't think of a good reason for what he's doing.
But, regardless of what I think, what you think, or what anybody else thinks, Trump is going to go as far with this as he wants to go. Likewise, the media--who are just licking their chops any time they can report on birth certificates, suspected racism, and class warfare instead of reporting on the Tea Party's calls for fiscal responsibility and less government--will be right there to feed off of Trump's questions about Obama's legitimacy. So since this environment is going to be there anyway, is there any possible way that those of us Conservatives who wish to focus exclusively on the issues (mainly because that's what's right for the country, but partially because it will be the easiest way to beat Obama) can somehow benefit from this ongoing media circus?
Perhaps there is...and I discuss this possibility in episode #10 of "America's Evil Genius"
Well, a birth certificate, anyhow...
However, this ongoing TV drama--entertaining as it may have been--has done nothing to convince me that Donald Trump would be a fitting President in 2012. I still believe that the best way to beat Obama is focus on his record and his decisions--every major decision Obama has made has effectively pissed off the majority of the American People...so why would a dog and pony show focusing on Obama's birth certificate or college records--which could potentially be legit--be a preferable strategy to focusing on his record--a record for which there is no defense?
You'd have to ask Donald Trump...I sure as Hell can't think of a good reason for what he's doing.
But, regardless of what I think, what you think, or what anybody else thinks, Trump is going to go as far with this as he wants to go. Likewise, the media--who are just licking their chops any time they can report on birth certificates, suspected racism, and class warfare instead of reporting on the Tea Party's calls for fiscal responsibility and less government--will be right there to feed off of Trump's questions about Obama's legitimacy. So since this environment is going to be there anyway, is there any possible way that those of us Conservatives who wish to focus exclusively on the issues (mainly because that's what's right for the country, but partially because it will be the easiest way to beat Obama) can somehow benefit from this ongoing media circus?
Perhaps there is...and I discuss this possibility in episode #10 of "America's Evil Genius"
Sunday, April 24, 2011
AEG#9: The Trump Card
The Man. The Myth. The Hair. Donald Trump has made noise about running for the Presidency in 2012--and while it remains to be seen whether he's serious or just looking for some publicity or a stroking of the ego, he is at least saying some rather impressive things in recent media appearances. He's talking a good game about how we should deal with the Chinese, how America should re-build itself economically, and how Barack Obama isn't fit to manage a Tastee-Freeze, let alone be the President of the most powerful nation on earth.
But is that enough?
It's one thing to tell people what they want to hear when you appear on television--heck, Obama attained the Presidency by doing little more than this. But is The Donald truly a Conservative? What are his views on issues other than business and the economy? Is simply calling out Obama enough of a qualification to be President?
In the most recent edition of America's Evil Genius, I discuss these issues and analyze Trump's potential to be a good President. In addition, I introduce the "Presidential GPA", which will be the method I use throughout the run-up to 2012 to determine exactly who the best candidate for the Oval Office should be.
But is that enough?
It's one thing to tell people what they want to hear when you appear on television--heck, Obama attained the Presidency by doing little more than this. But is The Donald truly a Conservative? What are his views on issues other than business and the economy? Is simply calling out Obama enough of a qualification to be President?
In the most recent edition of America's Evil Genius, I discuss these issues and analyze Trump's potential to be a good President. In addition, I introduce the "Presidential GPA", which will be the method I use throughout the run-up to 2012 to determine exactly who the best candidate for the Oval Office should be.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
AEG #8: Why should I hate the rich?
Within the last couple of months, the American Left has ratcheted up their "time-honored tradition" of attempting to pit Middle Class Americans against "Wealthy" Americans. From the Wisconsin Teacher Controversy to the current budget battles in Congress, Democrats are consistently floating the message of "the rich need to pay their fair share" and "If Tea Partiers really wanted to change what's wrong in this country, they'd oppose the rich instead of opposing the government!"
With that in mind, I ask the Left a very simple question in this week's edition of "America's Evil Genius". Quite simply, why should I--a middle class American--hate the "rich" or consider them any kind of adversary?
With that in mind, I ask the Left a very simple question in this week's edition of "America's Evil Genius". Quite simply, why should I--a middle class American--hate the "rich" or consider them any kind of adversary?
Thursday, April 7, 2011
AEG #7: Is Obama Beatable in 2012
You've probably heard them over the last year and a half just as I have...those people who insist that Barack Obama--as a sitting President--will have a huge advantage going into the 2012 election and that if the GOP has any hope of unseating him, they must find the ultimate "perfect" candidate, or else Obama wins 2012 in a cake walk. But is this really the case? Do the same traditional "advantages" that most incumbents have when running for re-election apply to Obama? Is the political environment in the 2010's unchanged enough that simply being an incumbent--and little else--would be enough to virtually guarantee re-election?
I think not. And in the most recent edition of "America's Evil Genius", I make the case for why Barack Obama has a huge mountain to climb in order to win in 2012--regardless of who is running against him. Both Part 1 and Part 2 of this conversation are below:
I think not. And in the most recent edition of "America's Evil Genius", I make the case for why Barack Obama has a huge mountain to climb in order to win in 2012--regardless of who is running against him. Both Part 1 and Part 2 of this conversation are below:
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
My reactions to the Libyan situation (and some kudos for Obama???? WTF???)
Well, *that* was certainly an eventful weekend, wasn't it?
The world finally decides it has had enough of Libyan leader Momar Kadafi (or however he's spelling his name this week...I swear, in the last 40 years this guy has gone through more versions of his name than "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"!) and launches a military strike. And Barack Obama--who up until now has been disgustingly doveish in his approach to "The War on Middle Eastern Culture"--was right in the middle of it. Obama made the call to authorize America's portion of military intervention in Libya. Obama ended up getting some level of criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with some of the "peaceniks" on the extreme Left (those that oppose any military action, for any reason, ever) saying the action was unjustified, and some on the Right opposing the decision because of the cost and (in some cases at least) simply because Obama authorized it.
My reaction to the events of this weekend? It might surprise some of you, considering how anti-Obama I am on most issues...but I support Obama's decision and believe he made the right call. Kadafi is one of many Middle Eastern despots who has advocated the anti-Western mentality that resulted in 9/11 and the subsequent war between Western Civilization and The Middle East. Once he started firing on his own people, his removal could wait no longer. Kadafi's regime is emblematic of the type that routinely springs up when an anti-Western, anti-Christian philosophy is allowed to take root. As such, the Libyan people, the American people, and the entire world is better off without it.
So I'm on board with Obama--all is well, right? Well, not quite. While I agree with Obama's decision, I'm a bit worried about how he arrived at that decision. Think back to your high school or college days, when you took an Algebra course. If your Algebra course was anything like mine, it wasn't enough to simply produce the correct answer on your homework or an exam, you also had to "show your work" as well. The idea being that your mastery of the process was as important as the actual answer you arrived at. After all, you could sometimes get the right answer by guessing, but "showing your work" made it clear that you fully understood the mathematical processes that you were being taught. Back when I was in high school, if you got the right answer on your Algebra homework, but didn't show your work (or if the work you showed was incorrect), then you only got half-credit (or sometimes, no credit) for your response.
And so it is with Obama's response to the Libyan issue. He came up with the correct answer, but when he "shows his work" in terms of how he got there, it's not impressive at all. At no point was Obama out in front marshalling the world's forces against Kadafi...indeed, he barely reacted at all until the United Nations and Europe made it clear that they were going to respond. He did not take the bull by the horns and shape the situation to our advantage, but instead was almost goaded into the situation. For the first time in our lifetimes, America is involved in a military conflict, yet we're not calling the shots. Such a result is inexcusable for an American President and the leader of the Free World. To take such a lackadaisical entry into the conflict compromises America's traditional (and rightful) role as the leader, the trend setter, and the catalyst for freedom loving nations everywhere. Obama did not lead the nation or the World in this matter--instead, he reacted and "followed".
America leads. It does not follow.
So the lack of leadership shown by Obama is quite worrying, indeed. It's difficult to compare hypothetical situations between Presidents, but I suspect that if a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have been confronted with this situation, they would have been out in front, making the case for military involvement, would would have been clear about the need for Kadafi to be deposed. Obama--while authorizing military action, which is a positive--has not made the clear case for military involvement nor has he made it clear that the continued reign of Kadafi will not be tolerated.
To do so would require strong language, and as the BP Oil Spill, the Egyptian situation, and now the Libyan conflict have illustrated, strong, straightforward, from-the-gut, clear leadership is not a trait that Barack Obama has. I've always suspected that this deficiency is rooted in the academic cocoon that he has come up in--and that his disconnection from the "real world" throughout his life leaves him looking for "consensus" and "input" when when clear and obvious decisions are right in front of his face.
Obama managed to back into one good decision. And for that he deserves a small amount of credit. But one decision does not make a leader.
The world finally decides it has had enough of Libyan leader Momar Kadafi (or however he's spelling his name this week...I swear, in the last 40 years this guy has gone through more versions of his name than "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"!) and launches a military strike. And Barack Obama--who up until now has been disgustingly doveish in his approach to "The War on Middle Eastern Culture"--was right in the middle of it. Obama made the call to authorize America's portion of military intervention in Libya. Obama ended up getting some level of criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with some of the "peaceniks" on the extreme Left (those that oppose any military action, for any reason, ever) saying the action was unjustified, and some on the Right opposing the decision because of the cost and (in some cases at least) simply because Obama authorized it.
My reaction to the events of this weekend? It might surprise some of you, considering how anti-Obama I am on most issues...but I support Obama's decision and believe he made the right call. Kadafi is one of many Middle Eastern despots who has advocated the anti-Western mentality that resulted in 9/11 and the subsequent war between Western Civilization and The Middle East. Once he started firing on his own people, his removal could wait no longer. Kadafi's regime is emblematic of the type that routinely springs up when an anti-Western, anti-Christian philosophy is allowed to take root. As such, the Libyan people, the American people, and the entire world is better off without it.
So I'm on board with Obama--all is well, right? Well, not quite. While I agree with Obama's decision, I'm a bit worried about how he arrived at that decision. Think back to your high school or college days, when you took an Algebra course. If your Algebra course was anything like mine, it wasn't enough to simply produce the correct answer on your homework or an exam, you also had to "show your work" as well. The idea being that your mastery of the process was as important as the actual answer you arrived at. After all, you could sometimes get the right answer by guessing, but "showing your work" made it clear that you fully understood the mathematical processes that you were being taught. Back when I was in high school, if you got the right answer on your Algebra homework, but didn't show your work (or if the work you showed was incorrect), then you only got half-credit (or sometimes, no credit) for your response.
And so it is with Obama's response to the Libyan issue. He came up with the correct answer, but when he "shows his work" in terms of how he got there, it's not impressive at all. At no point was Obama out in front marshalling the world's forces against Kadafi...indeed, he barely reacted at all until the United Nations and Europe made it clear that they were going to respond. He did not take the bull by the horns and shape the situation to our advantage, but instead was almost goaded into the situation. For the first time in our lifetimes, America is involved in a military conflict, yet we're not calling the shots. Such a result is inexcusable for an American President and the leader of the Free World. To take such a lackadaisical entry into the conflict compromises America's traditional (and rightful) role as the leader, the trend setter, and the catalyst for freedom loving nations everywhere. Obama did not lead the nation or the World in this matter--instead, he reacted and "followed".
America leads. It does not follow.
So the lack of leadership shown by Obama is quite worrying, indeed. It's difficult to compare hypothetical situations between Presidents, but I suspect that if a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have been confronted with this situation, they would have been out in front, making the case for military involvement, would would have been clear about the need for Kadafi to be deposed. Obama--while authorizing military action, which is a positive--has not made the clear case for military involvement nor has he made it clear that the continued reign of Kadafi will not be tolerated.
To do so would require strong language, and as the BP Oil Spill, the Egyptian situation, and now the Libyan conflict have illustrated, strong, straightforward, from-the-gut, clear leadership is not a trait that Barack Obama has. I've always suspected that this deficiency is rooted in the academic cocoon that he has come up in--and that his disconnection from the "real world" throughout his life leaves him looking for "consensus" and "input" when when clear and obvious decisions are right in front of his face.
Obama managed to back into one good decision. And for that he deserves a small amount of credit. But one decision does not make a leader.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)