LARRY'S WIRE<><>Opinions on politics, government and our culture<><> A Blog for Our Times!

No more post-speech autographs, puleeeeeez!

2011-01-27T07:35:00.002-06:00

I am not sure when it started, but I am sure it should be ended.

I am referring the President of the United States signing autographs on the floor of the Congress as he exits the chamber. It defines the word “tacky.”

Certainly, it makes the President and the event look bad. There has been significant notice of the fact that the State of the Union speech has become more of a political pep rally than a presidential report. In signing autographs on his way out, the President makes the entire event look like a campaign appearance. It is just not, as they say, presidential.

Even worse, though, is the gaggle of legislators begging for his signature on their souvenir programs. These are supposed to be serious minded legislators, contemplating the great issues of the day. Instead, they behave like teenie-boppers at a rock concert.

Some legislators even handed the President a stack of programs. And one fellow appeared to have an unrelated photograph for the President to sign. Has he no sense of propriety and dignity? At least the President was not suckered into that gambit. He refused to sign the photo.

Personally, I think the President should have made – and let us hope all future presidents will – a hasty, albeit dignified, retreat from the chamber with minimal glad-handing and autographing.

Obama Gives a D-minus Speech

2011-01-27T07:23:00.003-06:00

The wisdom of the American people, as impressively demonstrated on Election Day, was played out in the State of the Union speech. It was most certainly a far different report to the Congress than would have been made had President Obama and his liberal wing of the Democrat party not taken such a shellacking at the polls.

Because this was a speech borne on practical politics, as opposed to his heartfelt ideology, it was not a well-delivered speech. It seemed more like a speech class assignment than the report of the chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth.

Substantively, it was a disaster.

In trying to find the elusive common ground between the newly enlightened and emboldened free-market/limited government Republicans and the strong-central-government, tax-and-spend Democrats, the President proved there wasn’t any.

In attempting to please everyone, he ended up offending both sides.

His vision of “investments” (meaning massive government spending) in infrastructure, education and new technology were nothing more than the same old public works programs of the past.

On the other hand, the president’s hawkish talk on Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran would certainly offend his progressive base. You could almost hear the gasps of the left-wingers when he called for putting the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) back on all the college campuses. And then there were those references to cutting community grant programs and Medicare.

Perhaps his only universally interesting suggestion was to restructure the government. The problem will be the cantankerous debate that will ensue as to how to do that. Most certainly it is going to have to be done with an eye on drastically reducing the cost of the federal government.

Overall, the speech lacked any grand, but achievable, vision. He did not ask the American public to soar to the sky, as did John Kennedy. Rather, he merely invited the American public to climb to the edge of the hole.

And what about that obligatory memorable phrase? “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself,” Roosevelt assured the nation. “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” implored Kennedy. “Our long national nightmare is over,” declared Ford. “The age of big government is over,” announced Clinton.

Somehow, “this is our sputnik moment” does not measure up. It might have been better offered up in a Saturday Night Live spoof than on the floor of the Congress.

Ron Reagan Jr.'s Parental Smear Campaign

2011-01-25T07:42:00.005-06:00

In the recent biography of his father, Ron Reagan, Jr. alleges that his father was suffering from Alzheimer’s’ Disease while still in the White House rather than in 1994 when his diagnosis was made public.

Based on the contention that some signs of Alzheimer’s are detectable many years in advance of the more obvious and severe symptoms, young Reagan offers up a baseless opinion. He has no medical evidence to support his scurrilous contention.

As expected, the liberal community rose in a great “I told you so.” After all, the “authority” in this matter was none other than the 40th President’s only flesh and blood son. (Michael Reagan was adopted.)

What needs to be considered is that Reagan Jr. was estranged from his father for most of his adult life. Ron carried out a life-long vendetta against whatever he perceived was the failure of his dad to meet his emotional needs.

Not only did young Ron separate himself from the family, he took on the role of the anti-Reagan. He became a radical liberal, repudiating everything is father stood for. After a few unsuccessful attempts at show business – dancing to be specific – the younger Reagan became a radio talker for the left. He used the airwaves to carry out his loathing for his father.

He was a star of the short-lived Air America network, where he worked alongside and in concert with the most notable Reagan bashers in the country, such as Bill Press and Tom Harmon. He reveled in their company, and never disagreed with a single statement demonizing his father.

I would listen to his show from time to time, and I always felt a certain level of pity for the younger Reagan. Somehow, he allowed his life and his talent to be consumed by hatred of his father. It shaped him – perhaps more accurately, it twisted him.

Ironically, the fact that Ron Jr. has had a platform to lambaste his father is because of the very man he vilifies. Without the heritage and namesake of his president-father, Ron Reagan, Jr. would be an unknown something or other – obscure to the point of irrelevance. Oddly enough, he might have been a better and happier person.

Burton's Wall

2011-01-25T07:19:00.001-06:00

Indiana Congressman Dan Burton is continuing his 25-year battle to have a glass safety wall constructed in the House Chamber to separate the visitor gallery from the floor of the House.

My knee-jerk reaction was unfavorable. Just seemed to be another way to create a hermetically sealed elitist government. After reading Burton’s thinking, and the counter arguments, which are pretty weak, I have come to the conclusion that Burton is right.

First and foremost, we live in dangerous times. When the Capitol was built, the potential danger to legislators was single shot weapons of dubious accuracy. Hand explosives were possible, but not likely. A congressman of that era was more likely to be injured or killed by a colleague than a constituent.

Since the visitor gallery is only for guests to see and hear their legislators in action, the glass barrier makes no change in the relationship between the representative and the represented. There is no permissible communication from a gallery guest to the assembled legislators. When such communication does take place, the party is swiftly removed from the gallery, and occasionally arrested.

In 1954, the Ladies Gallery was used as a sniper perch, and five congressman were wounded in the ensuing gunfire. Capitol tour guides still point to a portion of splintered railing that was hit by one of the 30 rounds fired at the well of the House floor.

Burton worries that plastic explosives, other new technologies or a lapse in security might allow a bomber to sneak in. It would not take a professional baseball outfielder to make the toss to the speaker podium.

Burton notes that at least once a year, the entire United States government is assembled within shrapnel distance from each other. During the State of the Union address, and within 25 feet of the President, sit the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, the entire Supreme Court and most of the Cabinet.

I say “most” of the Cabinet because one member is taken to a secure hiding place just in case Burton’s worst fear were to happen – that by the action of one deranged individual or one motivated terrorist, the entire national leadership of the United States is wiped out in a nanosecond.

Now I figure, if prudence dictates that we hide away one of the Cabinet members as a safety measure, it makes even more sense to do everything possible to prevent such an attack in the first place.

The glass wall takes nothing way from the ability to view and hear the proceedings, but goes a long way in preventing what would be the worse attack on our seat of government since the British destroyed the city in 1812.

As public figures, members of Congress will always be individually at risk, as was so tragically demonstrated with the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords. We cannot fully protect against this risk without doing serious damage to our representative form of government. We must not isolate our public officials from the public. It is quite a different matter, however, to protect the assembled government in the performance of its duties. Burton’s wall is not to protect individual members of Congress, but to protect our very system of government.

To play on the words of President Reagan in Berlin, “Mr. Speaker, put up that wall!”

Politicization of a Tragedy

2011-01-22T09:34:00.000-06:00

One could expect the strident left to politicize the tragic shooting in Arizona in shameless effort to demonize the conservative majority in America. I am, however, greatly bothered by the general media’s propensity to serve as spokesperson for the radical left.

While conservatives lean to individual responsibility, liberals always look for the larger social phenomenon. It is always the non-liberal society that is at fault due to ignorance, mean-spiritedness or downright evil.

The media pundits and talking heads immediately blamed the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and the death of six innocent bystanders on right-wing rhetoric generally, the Tea Party Movement collectively, and Sara Palin individually.

No matter how nonsensical the left’s accusations were, the media gave them credibility by trumpeting the “party line.”

Never mind that the shooter, Jared Loughner, was described as “liberal” and “left-wing” by those who knew him. No matter that Giffords was a conservative, blue-dog Democrat – “targeted” by the left in the primary. No matter that the assassinated Judge John Roll was a staunch conservative. The media still made Loughner the tool of the right.

Evidence seems to suggest that Loughner was provoked to violence by Gifford’s perceived inadequate answer to his question at a previous public event. By liberal logic, does she bear some responsibility for her own fate?

In citing the acrid political atmosphere, virtually all media commentators cited “examples” of conservative comments and imagery. Most notable was Palin’s website graphic with crosshairs on congressional districts, including Giffords’.

In one of the greatest examples of gall and hypocrisy, Markos Moulitsas, of DailyKos, blasted the Palin graphic while ignoring his own “target” icon on Giffords’ district because of her conservative leanings.

In targeting the right (no pun intended), the media ignored innumerable examples of gun and violence metaphors pouring from the left, and even some outright threats. They failed to note President Obama’s “threat” that “if they bring knives, we will bring guns.” These words were not uttered by a largely unknown Tea Party rallier, but by the President of the United States. Is he culpable in the rampage in Tucson?

On the other side of the coin, what is the effect of all the shrill, accusatory rhetoric coming from the left and the media? Will Tea Party leaders be assaulted by vengeful mobs? Is Sara Palin now at higher risk of being the victim of another deranged leftie? Is the left essentially “targeting” these people?

Furthermore, do these baseless accusations of the left provoke the rage of those so wrongfully blamed, whether individually or collectively? I know that watching MSNBC Keith Olbermann spewing his arrogant vitriol against me, via my philosophy, got my ire raised.

Being old enough to have experienced the Days of Rage in the 1960s, I find it interesting that the widespread and clearly politically motivated violence of the left in those days was largely excused by the press. While there was lip-service condemnation of the wave of deaths and destruction, the cause was justified and celebrated. What is the example when society takes two murderous terrorists – speaking of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dorn – and makes them “distinguished” college professors to help influence and mold the minds of thousands of impressionable students?

Is the modern-day repetition of young adults becoming crazed mass murderers due to political rhetoric and the availability of guns? Or, should the call for national discussion include the breakdown of the American family? Violence on television and in the movies? Participatory fantasy violence in computer games? Or even … the oppressive policies of our increasingly authoritarian governments?

In seeking political advantage by blaming conservatives, the left wing media did a great disservice to the truth, to journalistic integrity and to identifying the real reasons why a guy like Loughner goes sufficiently nuts to kill innocent people en masse.

Finally … gun metaphors are ingrained in our language and our culture. They do not breed violence. Sane people do not take them literally, and deranged people don’t need them to act out their personal insanity.

Daley to Push Obama to the Right

2011-01-15T10:48:00.000-06:00

The appointment of former Commerce Secretary and Chicago political major-domo Bill Daley, as White House chief of staff is bad news for Republicans and terrible news for Progressives and their public-sector union supporters.

This appointment means that the Chicago Machine is still in charge in the Oval Office. However, Daley is more right-of-center, more bipartisan and less acerbic than departing advisors Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod. They were responsible for the sand-in-your-face Obama. Since the President tends to reflect his advisors more than most presidents, you will see the Daley difference in Obama in short order.

The old guard was about legislative accomplishment along philosophic lines regardless of the political fallout. They fought the political battles in left field. Daley will reverse that. Political success will take precedence over philosophic purity.

I say this is bad news for Republican partisans because the new Daley-made Obama will be more popular. The combative language will disappear. He will give more than lip service to bipartisanship. The change will be substantive, not just style. Daley is definitely a boost for the President’s 2012 reelection effort.

I also note that it is terrible news for Progressives and the hard left unions because Daley will move Obama to a more pragmatic position, which is clearly to the right of center. Obama cannot improve the economy without yielding to free-market concepts, and Daley is Mr. Business, not Mr. Labor or Mr. Liberal Agenda. Job creation will be achieved with policies pushed more by the Chamber of Commerce than the AFL-CIO.

Daley is smart, affable and effective – a combination hitherto not seen in the Obama White House. His knowledge, contacts and persuasiveness will give him great sway over the less experienced and malleable Obama. Daley is capable of actually negotiating a bi partisan compromise rolling back the most egregious portions of the Obama healthcare bill. If you doubt that, just think NAFTA.

Daley is a military hawk. Don’t expect to see Gitmo closed or the troops out of Afghanistan short of some discernable victory. I doubt that many terrorists will be tried in domestic courts.

The title on the door may say “Chief-of-Staff,” but Daley will function more like an associate President. Bet on it.

White House Press Secretary Now Creating (bad) News

2010-11-09T17:36:00.000-06:00

In what can only be described as supreme arrogance and hubris, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs got into a very heated, and somewhat physical, altercation with Indian security officials during President Obama’s state visit.

It started when Indian security officials decided to limit the number of reporters from India and America allowed in the room to five each, down from eight.

This threw Gibbs into a highly public rage. He even used his foot to prevent Indian guards from closing the door to the room where President Obama was meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Gibbs angrily inquired, “You gonna break my foot, now?”

Several times, Gibbs threatened to pull Obama out of the meeting if the Indian officials did not acquiesce to his demand for eight reporters. Rather than call his bluff or disrupt the official meeting, the Indian officials relented and admitted all eight U.S. reporters.

Gibbs is to be faulted on two very serious counts. First, he created an unnecessary international incident embarrassing the President and the United States. The image of an enraged American White House official yelling at Indian security officials can only transmit a negative image of America as an arrogant power to the people of India – and around the world. The photo accompanying this post is now the face of America – more so than any smiling poses of the President. Think about that.

Even worse is the fact that Gibbs appeared both willing and able to disrupt a meeting of two heads of state by ordering … yes ordering … the President of the United States to withdraw over a tiff that had nothing to do with the President or the serious business of the meeting. By this threat, Gibbs makes the President seem like nothing more than the figurehead of a cabal of all-powerful advisors.

I do not believe there is anything that Obama can do, short of firing Gibbs, that can undo the harm the Press Secretary has done to the image of America and the President’s own credibility as the man in charge. If the President does not send Gibbs packing for home immediately, he leaves himself vulnerable to critics who see an increasingly impotent president. Gibbs’ poor behavior will overshadow the rest of the trip – and maybe the rest of Obama’s presidency.

Labor Blew a Billion

2010-11-08T21:45:00.000-06:00

While the Democrats whine, and the press reports, about excessive corporate expenditures and secret funding, it is the spreading around of big bucks by big labor that should be of concern.

This year, it is said that the major unions spent more than one billion dollars in this election cycle. Certainly the amount of money is noteworthy, but it is the source that is most troubling.

Business tends to give to both Republican and Democrats. The unions give virtually all their money to Democrats. The union bosses are not trying to influence the Democrat party, they are trying to own it – and they already seem to have a long-term lease on it.

In addition to the distribution of the money, there is a serious problem with the source.

Virtually all corporate money is given voluntary. Union money is taken from members regardless of their desire to give, or their party/candidate preferences. In some elections, more than half the union members vote for Republican candidates, yet 99 percent of the money confiscated by the union “no choice” rules goes to Democrats.

It is encouraging that the American people are not so easily fooled or influenced by big labor’s big bucks. What did these labor bosses get for that billion-dollar donation this year? A crushing defeat that goes well beyond the obvious humiliation.

They lost real prestige and real power. They lost control of the U.S. House. They lost influence in the Senate. They lost key governorships and state legislatures in this all-important redistricting year. They lost the chance to pass any of their top-priority legislative agendas.

I would dare say that they even lost the unconditional support of the President. Seeing these election results, I suspect Obama will move away from the labor camp in setting his priorities. In fact, his post-election press conference contained a ringing endorsement of business and free markets, and nothing about organized labor. He talked about the need for small business job creation, very little of which is unionized.

Coming into this election, labor wanted to be the 800-pound gorilla, but instead, it turned out to be a paper tiger.

Image © BusinessandMedia.org

Things look better already. A GOP Victory Dividend?

2010-11-08T21:36:00.000-06:00

One of the immediate economic benefits of the Republican resurgence is the shift from pessimism to optimism –- or at least less pessimism. Consumer and business optimism is, to some extent, a self-fulfilling prophesy. Purchasing, investing, hiring, producing are all risk-based decisions – relying heavily on the perception of the future.

With Republicans in a position to – at minimum – block the most egregious, growth-retarding policies, both consumers and producers will open their wallets – the former to spend and the latter to produce.

The rate and level of economic recovery will take a little more than first impressions, however. If this were a poker game, I would say that the American public matched the bet on the first round of seven-card stud. Now they want to see more of the faced up cards.

Right now, the game is to the advantage of the Republicans. They will argue, with some legitimacy, that any economic improvements coming down the pike were due to their being put into the game. They will claim that without the GOP resurgence, the Obama administration would have continued down the path of economic devastation.

Obama and the Democrats will argue that all future improvements were due to their policies and the results just happened to be delivered after the Republicans arrived in town. That is a much harder argument to make convincingly.

Speaker Pelosi – Arrogant or Stupid?

2010-11-08T21:20:00.000-06:00

When I suggest that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might be stupid in the headline, I do not mean a lack of common intelligence – maybe more a lack of common sense. I am referring to the kind of stupidity which results in very intelligent people not seeming to see reality very clearly.

Pelosi was one of the key ingredients in the toxin that poisoned the political atmosphere for the Democrats. She may well be the most unpopular American woman since Jane Fonda traveled to Vietnam to play patty cake with the Viet Cong a couple generations ago.

There are two moments that define the obscenity of this woman. The first is when she marched through the crowd of Tea Party ralliers with the oversized gavel flanked by Black legislators. There is no doubt it was done in the hope that some renegade demonstrator would say or do something outrageous so that Pelosi could tar all Tea Party participants with racial and/or violent epitaphs. I am sure this was her intention because that

was not the normal way legislators enter the building, especially if there are demonstrators at the main entrances. In fact, she usually rides to the Capitol Building in the underground railway. It backfired because none of the thousands of demonstrators took the bait.

The second defining moment was when she said at a press conference, in response to criticism for not allowing time to read the healthcare bill before taking a vote, “we have to pass it to find out what is in it.” Such arrogance is beyond comprehension.

So, it appears that the GOP’s luck has not yet run out. If Pelosi were to ask me what she could do to further help the Republican Party, without hesitation, I would advise her to stay on as the leader of the House Democrats. Let her dismal 8 percent popularity be the face of the Democrats in the House for the next two years.

The fact that the surviving Democrat members would elect her would signal to the American public that they have not yet heard the voices of America, and that they may need yet another political “time out” in 2012 before they get it.

This also means that the reviled Obama, Reid and Pelosi troika is still in place. In a previous

blog, I suggested that Senate President Harry Reid will now be an albatross around the neck of the President. Should Pelosi succeed in her quest to maintain leadership over the House Dems, the President has a second albatross.

This is also where the liberal Democrat bias of the newsrooms becomes a benefit. They will undoubtedly afford Pelosi much more coverage than they did Republican minority leadership. She will be in the press a lot – pressing her unpopular left wing agenda -- and nothing could be better for the Republicans.

You have to wonder if Pelosi got the go-ahead from Obama. If she did and he did, then the President is as out of touch as Pelosi. I try to keep this blog on the highest ground, but honestly, doofus Reid and cackling Pelosi always bring to my mind images of the Scarecrow and the Wicked Witch from the Wizard of Oz.

To use comedian Jackie Gleason’s line, “How sweeeet it is!”

What can Obama do with a lame duck?

2010-11-05T17:55:00.000-05:00

Obama’s moment of truth will come at the calling of the special “lame duck” session of Congress. This is when we see what meaning there is to all the mea culpas and all the pretty words in the President’s post-election news conference.

The House under the new Republican conservative orthodoxy has promised to reverse the tide of big government, or, none-dare-call-it, socialism, in the face of the election night rant of Harry Reid, promising to fight for as much of the old Obama, Pelosi, Reid progressive agenda as possible – even as the reins of power are slipping from their politically cold dead hands.

Where is the President in all this?

The telltale issue may well be the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Obama, Reid and Pelosi have hitherto been adamant that they will only be extended to those with incomes under $250,000. The party-of-no says “no” to any tax increases at all – and the failure to extend even a portion of this IS, by definition, a tax increase on those left out.

This is a very key issue, because Congress MUST pass one version of the extension or the other. They cannot afford to do nothing. In his press conference, the President talks of an extension for the “middle class.” These are the buzz words for the $250,000 break point.

Unless Reid and Pelosi have gotten religion, or a private message from the Oval Office, they are likely to pursue the old plan in the “lame duck” session.

The current Democrat strategy is to demand the passage of the OPR version, daring the Republicans to filibuster it – essentially killing the extension and raising everyone’s taxes. With no choice, the Republicans might have to capitulate.

But it would be a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats.

Should the President take the hard line, he will have effectively rendered his press conference conciliatory rhetoric meaningless. The new Congress will convene as a war party because the President will have fired the first shot of strident partisanship. Reid and House Speaker John Boehner will be two generals leading their forces into a two-year series of philosophic battles.

On the other hand, if Obama surrenders on the Bush tax issue, he will lose what remains of his core left-wing support and signal his willingness to let the Republican House set the agenda for the next two years. The President already has the progressives crazed with his press conference endorsement of capitalism, free-markets and corporate America.

What the President does in advance of the new Congress may well determine the last two years of his first term, or the last to years of his presidency.

*Image © Eric Allie*

Lame Ducks and Dead Ducks

2010-11-04T21:01:00.000-05:00

We all know that a “lame duck president,” or now, a “lame duck Congress,” refers to that period between the election of the “new” and the inauguration of the “new.” It is that period in which the “old” still govern, but from a much weaker or “lame” position. The upcoming special session of Congress is, therefore, a “lame duck” session.

Recently, I coined a term to describe the Chief Executive of the United States as a “dead duck” President, defining a President whose party suffers such a horrendous defeat in the mid-term election that they lose an enormous power such that the President is mortally weakened and potentially unelectable for a second term. By my appellation, Barack Obama is now a “dead duck” President. (You can see the actual term and definition at the online Urban Dictionary, if you like.)

GOP Tidal Wave

2010-11-04T20:46:00.000-05:00

I watched as former Democrat vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferrarro opined that the Republican victory was not the big wave that had been predicted. WHAT?

This was about as huge of a repudiation and annihilation that a party can suffer. The Democrats lost control of the house with one of the biggest political party gainsin modern American history. Not only were the crop of new recruits that got the Dems the House in 2006 decimated, but a lot of “old bulls” and powerful chairmen were knocked off as well.

Also, keep in mind that it is the House from which all budget and appropriation bills must originate, and while Nancy Pelosi was re-elected, she is effectively gone. I would even go so far as to say that she ranks below an incoming freshman in terms of influence, even in her own party.

While the GOP did not take control of the Senate due to the fact that only one-third of its members had to face this year’s angry electorate, when you consider that the GOP already held some of those seats and some were beyond hope for a takeover, the Republicans had to win 10 out of 12 – a daunting task.

Picking up more than half a dozen seats, however, is very significant since it shifts the center of gravity in the Senate and makes stopping filibusters impossible. Not taking the Senate also means that Obama cannot run against the Congress as Harry Truman did in 1948.

The Democrat loss of governorships across the board – especially the big states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio – have huge ramifications for the redistricting year. The Republicans are poised to redistrict themselves into an even greater majority in the U.S. House and the various state legislatures.

Also, having a friendly governor in a state is an important asset for any presidential campaign. The advantage now leans toward to the GOP in key states – imperiling Obama’s second term.

The Tea Party, which is now bonded to the GOP, was a huge factor – not only in their own winning candidates, but the grassroots energy they generated throughout the nation. Some pundits see the defeats of Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle as some sort of indication of Tea Party weakness. No one should have expected that all Tea Party candidates would win, and the weaker ones did lose. To fully judge the Tea Party impact, you need to see their wins in the Republican primaries, their wins in the general election and their undoubted influence as the foundation for the broad range of GOP victories.

Ironically, I see the victory of Harry Reid, in Nevada, as the gift that keeps on giving. Had he lost, New York’s Chuck Schumer or Illinois’ Dick Durbin would be taking the helm in the Senate. They would not have the same negative national image and propensity to say stupid things as does Reid. Reid’s pugnacious victory speech gives the American people the personification of their angst against Washington, and is an albatross around the neck of the President.

I THINK … Blago wins big, but only temporarily.

2010-08-18T14:09:00.000-05:00

I will now indulge in a moment of “I told you so.” While most pundits and joe blows were calling Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich a nut cake for his high visibility public antics, I suggested that he might just be the shrewdest of the shrewd.

Most folks, and virtually all lawyers, think he should have kept his mouth shut – let his calm and cool attorneys handle public inquires. That’s what all those other indicted politicians did. Oh wait! All those other indicted politicians eventually got convicted and went to jail. Rod dodged 23 bullets and his brother, Robert, all four of the charges against him.

I proffered the opinion that as humiliating some of his pants dropping shticks were, they just might give him a few jurors – at least one – who will hold out for a guy they have come to know “more personally.” As of yet, I have not heard why that one juror was a hold out, but she kept Blago and brother from looking at some serious hard time – at least for the moment.

Trying to influence the jury pool is not invented genius. Former Governor George Ryan tried the same thing with his release of the death row prisoners – which got him a couple of Nobel Peace Prize nominations while he was awaiting trial. Apparently neither the Nobel jury nor the Federal Court jury was impressed. He did not get the Nobel Prize, but he did get six years in the slammer. Ryan was also hoping to get a friendly African-American on the panel since almost all the commuted prisoners were black.

Blago did not fall for any of that. He understood that winning the bleeding hearts of European liberals and the small cadre of domestic capital punishment opponents was not good enough. Maybe he knew that blacks tend to make tough jurors, and if the gambit didn’t work for a pompous white Republican politician, it was not likely to work just because he was a pompous white Democrat politician.

No. No. No. Blago knew that his best chance was to appeal to the Jerry Springer fans. Methinks, Donald Trump did not recognize Blago’s abilities when he booted him off the Assistant show much too soon.

Now, I know the ex-Governor did get convicted on one-half of one count – lying to the FBI – and is now officially a felon. But, after the feds threw everything they had at him and ginned up 24 real criminal counts with hundreds of years of jail time, you have to give the victory to Blago and his equally outrageous father and son defense team for staving off twenty-three and a half counts.

His only conviction was for fibbing to the FBI, not on any of the really serious criminal offenses. Personally, I think that is a pretty cheesy charge, and a five year penalty is a bit extreme. It is what they hung Dick Cheney’s guy, Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart after they could not convict them on the larger charges.

Since anyone under extensive interrogation from the FBI is likely to spin, fib a bit or simply misstate the truth, it is almost impossible not to be convicted. It is a “crime” that never would have been committed if the person was not indicted on real criminal charges.

It seems the prosecutors are determined to re-try the Blagojevich brothers. Why? Because they can. The deck is stacked against defendants to such an extent that convictions are almost unavoidable. THAT is what is so impressive about the jury action. The Blagojevich brothers beat some incredibly long odds – but unfortunately for them, the game is not over. If nothing else, the re-trial will provide some more great politics-as-entertainment for the reality television viewers.

My guess is that the re-trial will make Blago a bit of a folk hero. I know he was not acquitted on any of the charges. But, some seem to feel that enough is enough. The feds used their unlimited resources, but could not convince all 12 members of the jury. In the process they have destroyed the lives and reputations of two people. The humiliated the then Governor by arresting him in front of his family in order to stop what they allege was a rampant crime spree – which apparently the jury did not see. They got Blago booted from office without any presumption of innocence. They have bankrupted two families with children. In our system, prosecution IS punishment.

Okay. So much for the sympathy. I think Blago is as guilty as sin – and I think it is not likely he will pull the same rabbit out of the hat a second time. He may get off on some charges, but I am betting he gets found guilty on at least half. Blago has only survived to fight another day.

I THINK … the Ground Zero is the wrong place for the mosque, and Obama has failed to show leadership.

2010-08-17T11:17:00.000-05:00

Many times, public policy is not as complicated as the political leadership would have you believe. The proposed mosque within a stone’s throw from Ground Zero – which many now consider hallowed ground.

There are two important consideration on the side of the decision-making scale that favors the proposed masque site.

First: It would be wrong to suggest that the attack on the World Trade Towers by Muslim extremists indicts all Muslims and justifies the suspension of their Constitutional rights. We have to always guard against diminishing the power of the Constitution over a narrow or momentary issue.

The second thing that supports the advocates of the project is the law, it would seem. There is nothing in the plans for the project that runs counter to legal requirements.

Just because the law is on their side, however, does not mean the mosque should be built so close to Ground Zero (see ariel view). In fact, these two seemingly formidable arguments are outweighed by obvioius wrongness of the plan. The problem stems from the fact that the overwhelming reasons NOT to build on that site are emotional and moral, while the arguments in favor or technical and legal.

The most disturbing part of the public debate is that the Muslim community, under the leadership of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, knows full well that the location is contentious. They know that it is an unnecessarily painful tribute to those who lost loved ones, and the millions more who sympathize with the bereaved.

In recent days, it was announced that Imam Rauf will be travelling as a goodwill ambassador of the United States to the Middle East courtesy of our own State Department. According to Department spokespersons, the Imam is a voice bridging any schism between Muslims and non-Muslims.

At the same time, others report some of Imam’s more provocative rhetoric and allege that he is a supporter or at least sympathizer of radical Muslimism. His supporters say that the Imam must maintain a balance in order to be effective. This is nonsense. If he cannot speak out against the wrongness of the murderous terrorists in every instance, he served no benefit as a conciliator. Rather, he only serves as an apologist for our enemies.

There is also the history of Muslims building mosques at the sites of great victories. So, is the determination to build this house of worship in the missing shadow of the Trade Towers an opportunity for conciliation and understanding – a bridge, if you will -- or is it some cultural celebration and symbol of victory to be telegraphed to the Muslim world.

The fact that the motivation is controversial suggest that the project should be relocated. Failure to do so gives credence to the more sinister motivation. If the local Muslims want to produce goodwill, it is obvious that respectfully changing the site would have the most positive impact. If they persist in pursuing the Ground Zero site despite the public reaction, it is obvious that they are not seeking to establish goodwill but to force their own will for their own parochial purposes.

I am at a loss to understand why New York Michael Bloomberg gave the mosque his full support and endorsement. Governor David Paterson was more correct in proposing an alternative site, which he would help to secure.

But what about the President.

Obama stuck with the technical legal position in saying the Muslims have a right to build the mosque at the chosen site. He deferred in expressing any opinion on the wisdom or morality of the decision. In ducking the most important issue, the President missed an opportunity for leadership. If he can call in a cop and a professor to the White House to settle a minor confrontation, certainly he could have called in the Imam and expressed his presidential displeasure with the current plan. He could have cancelled the Imam’s taxpayer paid trip to Mecca.

Obama’s call for tolerance and understanding for the Imam and his mosque begs the questions why the American president chose to side with international Muslimism over the suffering of the American victims, their families and the majority of the President’s constituents.

If Obama, Paterson and Bloomberg had joined together to negotiate an alternative site, I feel quite confident that the issue would have been resolved early on. Why they didn’t is the lingering question. Minimally, it is a shortsighted lack of leadership. More disturbingly, it was the obvious new found influence the Muslim world enjoys with the Obama administration.

I THINK … WikiLeaks and its founder need to be shut down.

2010-08-14T11:42:00.000-05:00

It is reported that WikiLeaks is about to release another 15,000 top secret government documents to undermine the American war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course the White House is chagrinned, calling the action “irresponsible.”

My son not doing his chores before going to the beach – that is irresponsible. Giving out military secrets in war time, to aid the enemy and cause the deaths of American combatants and undercover operatives, is waaaay beyond “irresponsible.” It is treachery. It is treason.

WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange (pictured), has made himself an “enemy operative” – a terrorist by proxy. His actions will result in unnecessary allied deaths. No doubt about it.

As readers may know, I am not a fan of capital punishment. I am one of those seamless cloth pro-life types. However … my conscience does not ache over deaths of evil people that result from acts of self defense, whether it is stopping a home invader or in defense of the nation.

With that being said, we should declare Assange and his organization an active enemy and take him out. He is no more a journalist than Tokyo Rose was a legitimate news analyst. Shooting him is not my first choice, of course, but not off the list of possibilities. How about arrested. Kidnapped. Sent to CIA obedience school. If eliminating enemies is not a “responsible” role for our military or CIA, I am not sure what they are supposed to be doing.

One of the problems with NOT taking Assange out of action is that it gives license to others. I think if Assange and his cohorts were to be brought to justice, or even suddenly “disappear,” we would have a lot fewer copycats.

The “professional left” as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dubs them, will be outraged at my suggestion. Since they are nothing more than the cheering squad for American failure in the Middle East (and anywhere else on earth), I could care less. The sooner we render the radical left … oh, I mean the professional left … irrelevant to American policy, the sooner we can again become a great nation.

For those who wince at my suggestion, let me hear what you would do in this situation. I hope it is more than wagging a scolding finger as if Assange’s actions are nothing more serious than a high school prank. He is not an irresponsible bad boy. He is a dangerous anti-American operative.

I am not sure exactly when the media secured the expanded “right” to reveal American secrets. There is a distinct difference between a legitimate whistleblower uncovering wrong doing on the part of government officials and a traitor. Whistle blowing is quite different from stealing and revealing top secret strategic and tactical information that can harm our position in world affairs, undermine our ability to wage war and literally take the lives of those who serve this nation with honor and courage.

I THINK … Robert Gibbs reveals the truth about White House ambitions, perhaps unwittingly.

2010-08-14T11:02:00.000-05:00

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stepped into the political doo-doo if you follow the reports of the mostly leftish press.

What most of my political colleagues call the “radical left,” Gibbs more politely calls the “professional left.” I actually like his term better. “Radical left” is a tautology – meaning that the adjective is unnecessary because both words mean pretty much the same thing. Now, “professional left” expands the understanding. Not only are the lefties “radical” America bashers, but they are “professional” – it is the self employed occupation -- or should I say preoccupation – that drives them rise up in opposition to America .

Gibbs went on to say that these professional lefties would never be satisfied unless kooky anti-war Congressman Dennis Kucinich was made Secretary of Defense and the White House imposed a Canadian-style health system. In his lament, Gibbs, perhaps inadvertently, mocks the anti war movement and all but confesses that the Canadian health system is not suitable for free market Americans. Further, he slaps down the folks who thought Barack Obama was their guy – the radical left or progressives, as they euphemistically call themselves.

The pundits on the left argue that Gibbs is tone deaf for attacking the President’s base. This is how out of touch they really are. The professional left (I like the sound of that) is no more Obama’s base than the John Birch Society is the base of the GOP. The radical left, loud as they may be, is still the fringe.

Entirely too much public debate centers around the level of Obama’s socialism – or fascism, as I prefer. This diverts attention from the real issue – the real concern. The Obama forces are “autonomatrons” – and by that I mean they seek autonomous power. They lean left, because that is the more traditional road to the consolidation of power. What the Obama White House is seeking is the rigging of the structure to ensure permanent empowerment by the liberal wing of the Democrat Party – or, to put it another way, themselves.

Never forget that Washington is now being ruled with Chicago style governance. If Chicago was a nation, it would be a fascist banana republic. The government model is not dissimilar to that of China, where one party rules with leaders chosen by an elite bureaucracy.

The Chicago crowd has the White House, with Obama as the figure head. The power behind the throne rests with a troika of David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel and Valerie Jarrett. All three of them (and I have known them all personally to some degree) see the acquisition of power as the primary rule of politics.

Over in the Senate, you have the significant influence of another take-no-prisoners partisan Democrat right out of the Chicago Machine – Senator Dick Durbin. If Senate President Harry Reid is defeated and the Dems hold onto the Senate majority, Durbin will likely take over that extremely powerful position.

If Nancy Pelosi retains the speakership, two branches of government will be in the hands of those who think – to paraphrase Civil War General Philip Sheridan -- the only good Republican is a dead Republican. Though not from Chicago, she comes out of a similar power-based political environment.

The point is that ideology and philosophy are not what drives these folks. They manipulate for power. What the Gibbs’ comments reflect is the White House’s recognition that the loony left is not only not their base, but largely irrelevant to their ambitions.

Under the marquee of liberal doctrine, the Chicago folks are carefully crafting policies of permanent empowerment. The White House programs should not be measured and debated on the liberal/conservative scale, but on the individual freedom/oppression gauge.

I THINK … our government is getting scary with seizure of children based on politics

2010-08-11T16:04:00.000-05:00

Here is the situation. There is an illiterate couple in New Jersey who had the poor judgment to give their kids, ages 4, 3 and 2, offensive Nazi names. When the oldest turned 4, they went to a local bakery to get a decorated cake … “Happy Birthday Hitler.” The bakery refused and the story spread across the Internet and news media. Adolf eventually was provided a birthday cake, but just before the nannies of government removed him and his siblings from the family home.

Now, the government has announced that they will not return the kids to the parents, but rather are putting them in foster care – almost guaranteeing them severe trauma and lifelong “issues.” Of course, being named Adolf Hitler Campbell, Joycelynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honzlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell could also create “issues” for them. So, it seems, the kids will have “issues” one way or the other.

I think the biggest problem is the birthday boy, A. H. Campbell. He gets the full name of the Antichrist. Apart from a formal name change (which seems inevitable for these kids), maybe he can soften it by not using the middle name (a common practice), or by becoming Al Campbell. Joycelynn can simply not use the middle names, which makes Joycelynn Campbell a rather fetching name. If you are unfamiliar with the Nazi-esque Honzlynn Hinler, you are not alone. Some think it is an off-the-mark reference to Heinrich Luitpold Himmler. That would be akin to my parents naming me Larry Patrick as a reference to a Chinese dynasty. But after Adolf Hitler and Arian Nation, you can see the basis for the assumption.

As stupid, offensive and inconsiderate as the names may be, does that justify making them wards of the state? Given this Hobson’s Choice, I still think taking the kids is the worse of two bad options. If I were in the middle of this, I would give the kids back to their parents and maybe counsel them into changing the names for the benefit of the kids. I think that is doable.

After all, one can see how giving children unpopular names can damage them for life -- limit their potential. (Why did the name Barack Hussein Obama suddenly jump into my head?)

Now the plot thickens.

Authorities now claim they are not returning the kids because of family violence. They refer to a letter the mother gave a friend in which she accused her husband of being a dangerous person. She has since recanted the accusations, and now claims Mr. Campbell is quite the ideal hubby and daddy.

The fact that the government rationale came AFTER the authorities took the kids is chilling. They exceeded their authority, both legal and moral, in the first place. Instead of issuing an apology, the authorities are trying to belatedly justify their actions. That is a classic abuse of government. Does it strike you as ironic that in revulsion to the children’s names, the New Jersey authorities are acting like … oh … Gestapo?

In my modest investigation, I could not find any previous problems with the parents or the kids. The latter seem rather healthy and happy – obviously too young to know their names are time bombs set to go off in the high school years. (Imagine some young Jewish princess announcing to her parents that she is going to the prom with Adolf Hitler.)

When you see how many truly endangered kids are NOT taken away by the state – often with tragic and fatal results – it is hard to imagine the justification for the removal of the Campbell kids. Show me kids in serious danger, and I will be the first to take them away from the parents, but not over matters of political opinion or stupidity – whichever defines the Campbell situation.

I say, give the kids back to the parents.

Footnote: This idea that kids should be removed from parents for political reasons is not new. You will recall the case of Elian Gonzalez, the young Cuban boy that created a national controversy when Florida relatives wanted him to stay in American even though he had a father, his only parent, in Cuba. After a lot of debate, we did the right thing. We sent the boy home to be with his father. A lot of my conservative friends got cranky because I joined the side of Elian’s dad. As a father, I have a very strong belief that family ties trump politics – even offensive politics.

I THINK ... the death of Dan Rostenkowski takes away one of the great political characters.

2010-08-11T15:02:00.001-05:00

With the death of Dan Rostenkowski, or Rosty, as many of us knew him, a giant of a man has left the political stage. That can be said both figuratively and literally. The six foot, four inch former chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee towered over most members of congress in stature and in power. He was known around the congressional campus only as “Mr. Chairman” of “THE Chairman.” Even though there are scores of members of Congress with that title, anyone who was anyone knew who “Mr. Chairman” was. That’s power.

I have known Rosty long before he was called by title only. But even in his pre-Ways and Means chairmanship days, he was a formidable member of congress. Lots of congressmen get into fights over legislation, but Rosty was one of the few that could step in and settle them.

He was an old style Chicago Machine politician, as was his father. He had a gruff ward heeler demeaner at home, but could hold his own with any President or head-of-state passing through Washington. He was a laborite, but with scores of CEO buddies.

Thought more than a 40 year association with him, there are two periods that stand out.

In the early 1980s, as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, I was leading a long and seemingly hopeless effort to save the Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. On the eve of the successful conclusion of that fight, things when off track. The developers, led by attorney and political insider, Marshall Holleb, needed an Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG). These were being held up by the Reagan Administration, specifically by then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Sam Pierce.

Since he was already a supporter of my effort – politically and financially -- I traveled to Washington to seek Rosty’s help with the UDAG, After I explained the situation, Rosty asked his secretary to get Vice President George Bush on the line. Rosty made the case for the UDAG, then closed with this memorable line: “And tell the President, if he can’t give me this piddley UDAG to save the Chicago Theatre, he’ll have one pissed off chairman during the next round of tax reforms.”

The UDAG was granted, the Chicago Theatre was saved – and as a bonus I got the Vice President Bush as the headliner for my next City Club annual dinner.

A decade later, I was on opposite side of the partisan divide from Rosty, handling the congressional campaign of little-known Michael Flanagan. Mike was the David taking on the political Goliath. Even though Rosty was hammered by a serious of indictments for misusing public funds and public employees, he was considered a shoo-in. On the eve of the election, Associated Press lead off with a headline that Rosty was in a “cake walk” election. I told former WLS-TV political reporter Andy Shaw that we would take it by 10 points. No one took me serious. Flanagan won by ten.

Rosty’s defeat also exposed a bit of the unholy bipartisan central power structure in Illinois. On the morning after the election, Governor Jim Edgar hosted is traditional Republican victors breakfast. With Flanagan behind him on the stage, the Guv lamented the defeat of his “good friend” Dan Rostenkowski. But why not? Edgar was openly supporting Rosty throughout the campaign. Edgar would eventually aid and abet the return of that seat to the Democrats in the person of Rod Blagojevich, followed by Rahm Emmanual.

To the surprise of many, even after his election defeat, Rosty was as friendly to me as ever. That would seem impossible in today’s politics-as-blood-sport culture. In those days, partisanship was more like a boxing match. You were expected to fight hard to win partisan battles, but when the bell rang, the dukes were dropped and civility resumed. Rosty understand that culture, and he lived it.

For good or bad, Rostenkowski was the personification of the Chicago Machine. He was partisan. He loved “pork.” He was tough. He didn’t always play by the rules.

No matter if you were working with him, or against him, you had to love the guy. He will be missed.

I THINK … killing people because of alleged racism is … racism.

2010-08-07T12:44:00.000-05:00

If you believe the spin, Omar Thornton killed 8 white co-workers at a beer distributorship in California because he was subjected to prolonged racism from his employer and colleagues. He left a recorded message to that effect, but failed to cite examples – just random ranting.

In fact, the most heinous act of racism was perpetrated by Thornton, himself. He killed 8 people because of their race … period. There were pattern of racism evident in the company, and no complaints from his African-American co-workers.

Oh! And what led to his termination? Video recordings and other evidence that he was stealing beer and reselling it privately. I suppose that was his way to bring justice to a honky society.

Balderdash!

You can argue that Thornton was insane, or you can argue that he was a malicious mass killer. What is beyond debate in a civilized society is that he is the guiltiest of all. His excuses, and those offered up by his girl friend and family, should not be taken seriously.

Black, white or green, Thornton was a killer, a psychopath and ablight on society. His only modicum of decency was to serve as judge, jury and executioner in ending his own life – saving society the trouble and expense of prosecution.

On the larger scale, it is about time that the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world stop placing their need for publicity above common sense and common decency. They enlarge the racism by pandering to paranoid sentiment and give post mortem license to the actions of people like Thornon. To give credence to Thornton’s excuse, they widen the racial divide the purport to rue.

The Jackson/Sharpton brand of racism was seen in the aftermath of the wrong verdict on O.J. Simpson, the controversy surrounding the Tawana Brawley “rape” case (pictured with Sharpton), the defense of racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and their statements in support of the provocative behavior of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, Jr. that led to his arrest. These two “ministers” will find and promote racism whenever there is personal advantage.

We will know when we have arrived at a post-racial America when the likes of Jackson and Sharpton have no more appeal and no more relevancy -- and I believe we are closer to that day than the fawning media yet knows.

I THINK … Elmwood Park, Illinois is taking a page from the Communist manifesto.

2010-07-31T10:38:00.000-05:00

Sometimes the largely unnoticed issues are the most telling. Take the recent events in the middle American Chicago suburb of Elmwood Park (where my parents lived out the last years of their lives).

As a preface, you need to recall how public criticism of the old Soviet and pre-Nixon China was treated. Expressions of displeasure with the government would result in arrest or commitment to mental institutions. Anyone speaking out against the “wise leaders” -- even for the most modest of reasons – was punished as a malcontent, a nut or a criminal.

Now consider this.

An Elmwood Park city council committee chairman, Stephen Hipskind, recently ejected Darlene Heslop because she “rolled her eyes” in as a sign of disgust over the hiring of a $30,000 lobbyist. Ponder this for a moment … getting kicked out of a public meeting for a disparaging facial expression.

Such enforced “respect’ is opposed to everything America is about. We are a nation that protests our leaders, when we disagree. We yell out pejoratives, and scream out opposition. This is the American way. This is what personal freedom is about. This is what the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees.

But wait! There is more.

Elmwood Park’s city attorney has been directed draft an ordinance to make it illegal to “disrupt” a government meeting with non verbal facial expressions or body language. Will this include frowning, shaking your head in a negative gesture, looking shocked, glaring, folding your arms across your chest or maybe just falling asleep? Where is the borderline of disrespectful or contemptible appearance? You can only imagine what would become of people who boo, hiss or groan. On the other hand, you can bet that clapping, cheers and attaboys would not be considered disruptive. I am not sure even the old Communists in Moscow and Beijing ever went that far.

This is just another example of how our populist republic is slowly evolving into elitist statism.

Disclaimer: The photo is for illustration purposes and not from the Elmwood Park meeting.

I THINK … I think a minor overreaction by a person should not cause a major overreaction by government.

2010-07-31T09:17:00.000-05:00

Francis Hajosy (pictured left) is a 54-year-old high school teacher in Stafford, Connecticut. He threatened an unruly female student with taking her over his knee for an old fashion spanking for refusing to take her feet of the desk and sit properly. She raised the ante by taking a can of spray glue and defiantly shooting it to the air. When he grabbed her, she starting kicking at him. There was a bit of a scuffle, but Hajosy apparently managed to get her over his knee at least long enough to apply three or four slaps on her butt.

I think we could all agree that his handling of the situation was a bit extreme … things escalated. Minimally, he needed to be sent to the principal’s office, as they say. Assuming that this was an exceptional situation in an otherwise exemplary teaching career, I see this as something to be handled by school administrators, with apologies and punishment all around.

There are still a lot of well educated people alive today who can remember corporal punishment as a routine part of school discipline – especially in the Catholic school system I attended. The criminalization of academic corporal punishment and the decline of quality education are pretty much similar chronological charts. I am not sure that this is an unrelated coincidence. Lack of classroom discipline is a major factor in failed educational systems. However, I will leave that argument for others.

Instead of some administrative discipline, Hajosy was arrested and charged with second-degree breach of the peace (whatever in Hell that is) and fourth-degree sexual assault. A judge issued a protective order against Hajosy. He was suspended from his job indefinitely. Out on $5000 bond, he faces years in jail and a life of a registered sex offender – not to mention thousands of dollars in legal fees from criminal charges and a possible civil suit. Right or wrong, win or lose, this case can screw up his life for years to come.

Frankly, I don’t see sexual motivation in his actions. This is just another example of the neo-puritanical component of political correctness that runs in conflict with the flagrantly liberalized sexual mores of our times. Without further evidence, his motivation seemed to be punishment, and his flaw was an anger that blew away his common sense and good judgment at the moment. Happens to us all, at times.

I know all the anal retentive, politically correct libs are going to be outraged over my opinion on this matter. They will produce a litany of “what ifs.” They will wax on about some imaginary psychological scar that will doom this young lady to a life of therapy. They will elevate her humiliation to the level of trauma when, in fact, punishment and humiliation are Siamese twins. You cannot have one without the other. The strident left-wing feminists will call Hajosy’s actions a form of rape (which is a cruel disservice to anyone who really has been raped), and declare both Hajosy and me as insensitive male pigs.

Let me stress, I am not endorsing his actions, but think the punishment should fit the crime – or in my opinion the non-crime, in this case.

What we really have here is another small example of an overreaching government. Every problem in our lawyer-ruled society must be handled by the lawyer-run legislative, juridical or enforcement communities. I wonder if we will close the loop with a civil suit filed by parents against Hajosy, the school, the local board of education and whoever else some opportunistic attorney wishes to put on the list -- and on behalf of parents who are more motivated by money than justice.

With a sex component, Hajosy may well be placed into some government sex counseling program – which is intended to bring his thinking around to what he most likely already knows and embraces. These thought adjustment programs scare me. While seeming innocent enough at first glance, they smack of the thought control agencies depicted in futuristic sci-fi movies and novels and, for real, in the old Cold War Communist regimes in Russia and China.

When we are not allowed to settle difference between ourselves, or with minimal civic involvement, we are succumbing, inch by inch, to the oppression of a police state. One of the common retorts of yore was, “don’t make a federal case out of it.” In other words, don’t make it more than it is. Today, we seem to see government involvement as the first and only option.

As a parent, what would I do if this had happened to my daughter? First, I would want to know what behavior on her part caused the confrontation in the first place. I would want to know why she was unruly, disobedient and disruptive. I would talk to Hajosy and the principal in private to have them explain the behavior. I would demand an apology, BUT without absolving my daughter’s culpability.

In other words, I would have both Hajosy and my daughter sitting in the corner with the proverbial dunce cap. My fear is that Hajosy will be made a perverted criminal, and the girl’s bad behavior is not dealt with. I can almost see the smug look on her face. That would not be a good outcome for anyone.

I THINK … California should serves as a BAD example.

2010-07-26T08:28:00.000-05:00

I did not mind that we followed California’s lead into elements of the sexual revolution. I did not mind following the casual dress code for business. I was okay with the pseudo healthy life style. I was not okay with avocados and pineapple slices on what they call “pizza,” however. But, that is off my point.

More specifically, I wonder how far the rest of America will follow California’s go-for-broke financial schemes. In some cases, I guess pretty far. Here in Illinois we embrace it completely – which explains why we are heading into financial ruin, ourselves.

Because the tax raising Democrats and the cost cutting Republicans in the state legislature cannot agree, California is not only without any money, they still cannot produce the obligatory state budget to distribute the money they do not have.

The failure to create the budget has lead Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to order all state employees, except union members, to be paid only at the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. The State Comtroller refused to obey the Governor. The Governor went to court. The legal battle rages atop the legislative fight.

There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger’s will create a hardship for thousands of employees, and, if prolonged, could result in repo’d cars, house foreclosures and mounting bills. Consequently there is a lot of anger being directed at Governor Steroids. But, he is not the culprit. The anger should be cast at the Democrats, at all levels of state and municipal government, who spent California into bankruptcy.

They have followed the Keynesian, socialist economic model for years. Maybe that is even unfair to Kenyes and the socialist. Maybe it is merely the Democrats nature to buy political support with taxpayer money without much consideration to economic theories or realities.

Keep in mind the budgetary deadlock in California is between the tax-increase Democrats and the cost-cutting Republicans – and this is mirrored all over America, especially in Washington, D.C. Even before we fight over cutting taxes, which is exactly what we need to do to get the economy growing, we need to resolve the money debate of the moment. Do we increases taxes (or borrow even more of our children’s future) to cover and continue the spending frenzy, or do we place a moratorium on increased government spending and figure out how to cut it in real dollars.

Remember, the Democrats will never stop spending, taxing and borrowing. It is there nature. They are a political party that depends on people being dependent on them.

While I feel sorry for those who will suffer if the $7.25 wage is imposed, it is sadly true that California has earned its economic punishment. Rather than follow the California example, we should be running from it. Personally, I prefer the Indiana example – maybe more about that another time.

I THINK ... we need to resurrect our historic concept of treason.

2010-07-26T08:04:00.000-05:00

It is reported in Politics Daily that Wikileaks has released to publications all over the world more than 90,000 top secret documents relating to the military and diplomatic situation in Afghanistan -- and this is not the first time.

The sole purpose of the leak is to undermine our war effort … pure and simple. It will embolden our enemies, weaken our allies and cost the lives of untold numbers of military and intelligence personnel. Perhaps we cannot yet put an exact number on the latter, but additional loss of life is inevitable.

The White House, through National Security Advisor James Jones, strongly condemned the action and complained that Wikileaks did not contact them first.

Condemn the action? This is what you get from liberal governance … words. I can only imagine what our reaction would be if Ronald Reagan were President at this time.

We are in war, and giving out military secrets is treason. It is about time we enforce the laws against treason without sympathy. The First Amendment rights and the tradition of a free press do not entitle individuals or organizations to release and publish secret documents. There are no nuances.

Unless President Obama enforces the treason laws and brings to swift justice all those who now flaunt them, he will again prove that his left wing global philosophy trumps the traditions and laws of the United States of America, and the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold.

When you couple this with his refusal to secure our southern border for political purposes and his willingness to enter into international pacts detrimental to the power and wealth of the United States, it is no wonder that a significant percentage of the public consider him the first un-American President.

I THINK … it’s time to lay the blame for America’s poor quality urban education where it belongs – on the education industry, the unions and the polit

2010-07-06T09:27:00.000-05:00

I have been a consultant to the Chicago and Detroit Boards of Education during brief times of reform. I have even traveled to Lithuania to consult on the then new, post-Community school system. I was the founder of the first school choice coalition in Illinois, etc. etc.

I say this just to establish that I know something about American education. The situation is not so complicated. Our public schools are failing … ah … have failed … because of politics. This is not accident. In most major cities, tens of thousands of blossoming minds are trampled down for political and financial gain.

Kids are kept prisoners in substandard schools with inferior education because they are the currency that provides the education unions with members, money and political power. The political value of each kid can be calculated through wages, dues and pension funds.

Why has so much money produced so little good? If you think the “good” is the education of our young people, you are wrong. No wonder you are confused. For most urban school systems, the “good” is the money for the teachers, the unions, the suppliers, the contractors, the support services … and oh yeah … the politicians. As long as these folks are rich, fat and happy, the education machine is running properly – to hell with the kids.

There is no good reason that we cannot give our kids the best education in the world. It is done all the time. It is done in the Catholic Schools. It is done in private schools. It is done charter schools. It is even done in hundreds, maybe thousands, of suburban and rural public school systems.

The big urban school systems do not fail because they cannot teach kids, or because kids come from poor families and single-parent homes. They do not fail because of classroom size. They do not fail because of drugs. They do not fail for lack of money. They fail because the politician and the union officials want them to fail.

How can I say something so outrageous? All you have to do is look at the many examples of quality education, and you know that the failure of the urban government run schools is no accident, no inevitable fate, and no force major. It is the simply the unholy trade off for money and power that dooms the children of the cities.

You want proof that inner city kids can be educated. There are many examples – way back when Marva Collins ran Chicago’s Westside Prep in the heart of the ghetto (and you can download the resulting Hollywood movie).

Maybe it is not a movie yet, but check out Chicago’s Urban Prep Academy. The Class of 2010 will be sending 100% of the graduates to four-year colleges. That’s right. The entire senior class is going to college.

Urban Prep is not some fancy school in an upscale neighborhood that accepts a few promising inner city kids out of noblis oblige. This is a totally minority school in the heart of Chicago’s black ghetto. The kids now graduating were previously on the path of joblessness, gang membership and menial jobs or crime.

The point is … if there is a sincere effort to educate kids, we can do it. If we do not do it, it is because we don’t want to – or, I should say, they don’t want to.

It’s time we stop giving the urban school industry the benefit of the doubt. They are in the business of destroying the kids’ education for political and financial gain. Until that ends, no amount of money will fix the problem – maybe make it worse.

I THINK ... GOP National Chairman Michael Steele should resign.

2010-07-03T14:56:00.000-05:00

I was all in favor of Michael Steele becoming the head of the Republican National Committee. In fact, I made a number of calls in support of his candidacy. I could think of nothing better than a conservative African American to be one of the key voices in opposition to President Barack Obama’s far left agenda.

I got what I asked for, but I did not think to ask that the person be intelligent and skilled.

Steele has a history of foot-in-mouth statements, but none can compare to his remarks about the Afghan War made to a crowd of donors. Maybe he thought the insider session was off the record, but even that does not excuse the ineptitude of his remarks. Basically, he said the Afghan War was started by Obama, and that it is unwinnable.

His facts are so provably wrong that it is impossible to understand how he could not know better. Is he that ill-informed … or does he think he can heap blame on Obama with his own version of the facts? Does he think his audience is that stupid?

In addition to his case based on ignorance or malicious misinformation, Steele also joined the extreme left wing in suggesting we should pull out immediately – the consequences be damned. If there is any unifying issue in America these days, it is the broad belief that we must win in Afghanistan. Only the crazies think America can walk away – and apparently Michael Steele.

The GOP has a good and important message to convey to the American people in this election year. It should not be diminished or demeaned by the foolish and counterproductive rhetoric of those who prattle.

As National Chairman, Steel possesses one of the most important Republican megaphones. Despite his next day public apology and position reversal, it is time for him to pass that amplifier to someone with the knowledge and skills to convincingly articulate the GOP message. Political insider stuff aside, I would give the job to Newt Gingrich. Far and away, he is the best spokesperson the GOP has. In any event, Michael Steele needs to go -- sooner than later.

I THINK ... Mayor Daley should be made to to write the Second Amendment on a blackboard 100 times, so he gets it.

2010-07-02T19:24:00.000-05:00

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is again showing that the “Chicago Way” is his way only. He will not be dissuaded from the imposition of his edicts by the law, the Supreme Court, the will of the people, American traditions, the U.S. Constitution or common sense.

Following the rejection of the Chicago gun ban on Constitutional grounds, Daley has forced the passage of a series of Draconian regulations that effectively make gun ownership in Chicago a meaningless right. In all probability, most of the new law will be stricken again by the Supreme Court, but only after years of meandering through lower court decisions.

In what can only be described as a fit of civic petulance worthy of any despot, Daley will cause Chicago to endure years of uncertainty, and millions of dollars in legal fees – which the Mayor will gladly dole out to his lawyer friends. In fact, this law is just another form of creative patronage.

It is also another example of Daley’s willingness to add more needless costs on the already reeling city. It should not go without notice that Hizzoner does not mind spending lavishly in pursuit of his personal agenda, even as funding for critical services is evaporating.

And to the central issue, what has all his gun control efforts accomplished? The gang bangers and the crooks remain immune to the Mayor’s laws, killing hundreds of his constituents each year. Virtually ever week some teenager is gunned down by “accident” – the victim of misidentification or a stray round.

In the name of public safety, Daley disarms the innocent for the benefit of the criminals. Perhaps crime control should have priority over gun control. Just maybe, with an armed public, we would have more dead crooks than vulnerable victims.

If a man breaks into a home to rape a woman, and she blows him to his eternal judgment, it seems to me society is the beneficiary. At least it takes some pressure of the judicial docket. I am all for making crime a high risk business.

The Mayor creates criminals out of people who are not – and in the process he sends the innocent to jail while those who commit real crimes roam the streets.

Of course, this makes no difference to the rubber stamp Chicago City Council, which passed his hand scribbled ordinance without so much as a public hearing. In a move a unfathomable hypocrisy, the good alderpersons of Chicago continue to exempt themselves from Daley’s gun restrictions. As part of the government elite, their safety is paramount – and how could Daley get their votes if he did not accede to the worthiness of their exception.

Maybe there was time that the experiment in gun control was warranted as an untested theory. But, after the generational failure of feel good gun laws, Daley loses the benefit of the doubt. He is just wrong in this.

I THINK ... there is no economic recovery with Obama-nomics.

2010-07-02T09:04:00.000-05:00

It appears that the “recovery” recently proffered by President Obama and his Democrat cohorts is now falling into relapse -- at least that is the latest report from the economic wunderkind. We should not be surprised.

First: There has been no recovery. Oh sure, the stock market had some gains, foreclosures abated a bit and the rate of new joblessness started to level off. Don’t those things suggest recovery? Nope!

First of all, the stock market tends to respond to corporate profitability. Profits go up. Stocks go up. The reason, however, is not good. Corporate America’s bottom line starting looking better because of cost cutting, not increased sales – and cost cutting was largely in the workforce. That is why the stock market rose and unemployment did not go down.

Second: The Obama stimulus package was largely a waste of money. It was more like a pain killer that makes the pain lessen until it wears off. Now that the stimulus money passed through the financial system, the same old economic headache has returned. This is what happens when we treat only the symptoms and ignore the disease.

Finally: Obama did very little to fix the real problems. His attempts to have the government produce growth by financing work projects is a loser. Never worked, and never will. Remember, every time Obama says the federal money will create spending, and therefore jobs, he does not want you to understand that he took away the money, through taxes, from people who would have spent it, themselves.

His age-old scheme simply redistributes wealth from those who oppose him to those who support him. Obama is using the economic downturn as cover to impost his big government agenda on the United States. He is operating more like a looter who uses a disaster as a cover for his actions. It may be good Machiavellian politics, but certainly not good economics.

You might counter by noting that a lot of the money being spent by Obama is not from taxes, but from borrowing or simply printing more money. Borrowing only insures that we will have a much larger financial crisis in the future. He is literally stealing out children’s and grandchildren’s … and by this time maybe eve our great grandchildren’s ... money. This means a lower standard of living for future generations. This is not only bad economics, but immoral.

Printing money is another short term solution that will bring hyper inflation to a nation that will be, by then, reeling on the brink of economic chaos. They call it “stagflation.” Keep in mind that inflation can feel good because wages go up. This is not economic growth, as Obama and the Keynesians would have you believe. When you go to spend your wages at the store, you will find that your “buying power” will be no better, or even worse, as prices soar.

Government spending is often compared to a narcotic, since there is a certain short term good feeling followed by an inevitable crash – and people and institution do get “hooked” on government money.

Brace yourself for a rocky economic ride for the foreseeable future. For real relief, we should be looking at 2014 – two years after we toss out Obama and the Democrat leadership. If we do not, the long term outlook is grim.

I THINK ... the post office is like any government agency.

2010-07-01T13:12:00.000-05:00

Every now and then, when a person is inclined to think government can do something ... anything … right, you are gifted with reality – sometimes with the most modest of examples.

Not long ago I received a letter from the United States Post Office. They explained that they were returning the contents of an envelope that they could neither deliver to the “unknown” addressee nor return it without opening the envelope. They returned my enclosed check and the accompanying brief note – finding my name printed on the check and apparently doing some sort of search to secure my address. I mean, if the Post Office cannot find your address, who can?

On the surface, it seems like pretty good service. However, you may change your mind when you learn that the check was made out to and mailed to … Ready for this? … the United States Post Office. That’s right. Apparently, they could not find their own address.

Sort of reminds me about the time I tried to call the phone store, only discover that they had an unlisted number.

Obama is no socialist

2010-07-01T10:03:00.000-05:00

I THINK ... President Obama is not a socialist.

So, stop calling him one! He is not!

He is a fascist, and about that, I am not kidding.

First you must remember that he and his cadre are products of the Illinois (nee Chicago) Machine, the “banana republic” of American politics. It is that same form of government that produced Franco Spain, Mussolini Italy, Hitler Germany and the old dictatorships of South and Central America, Illinois. Yes, Chicago is a classic dictatorship – a fascist dictatorship.

For more than two generations, we feared and loathed Communist socialism, forgetting about the fascism we crushed in Europe in World War II. Our “eternal vigilance” has been so focused on the failed, frail and fading extreme socialism that we hardly recognize the threat of fascism.

Knowing the basic distinction between the two is critical to understanding why we are not sufficiently alarmed by what is happening in Washington. Socialism means the government taking over all aspects of civic life. In socialistic society, the government owns and operates everything. Except for the most minimal human interaction, there is no private sector, no personal property, and no inalienable individual rights that trump the pseudo rights of the collective as determined by an elite minority.

Like socialism, fascism is an authoritarian and elitist doctrine (again I refer you to Chicago), but with one great difference – maybe more in appearance than reality, but significant nonetheless. In fascism, the private sector succumbs to the power of the central government, but does not lose its technical private status. The great businesses become quasi governmental entities. The business leaders become less entrepreneurs and more like bureaucrats.

We can see this in the creation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac – two “banks” that are as much public sector a private. With the passage of the so-called financial reform legislation, the small banks are put to virtually fatal competitive disadvantage, while the big banks morph into Fannie and Freddie-type institutions. The Healthcare legislations is nothing less than a “great leap forward” for government run medicine.

The co-opting of General Motors is yet another example. Unlike a loan or the bailout that was given to Chrysler a generation ago, GM comes under the management control of the federal government. Through the use of unelected “czars” and bureaucrat overlords, GM is effectively being owned and operated by the central government. Obama even talks about hiring and firing officers. Car dealerships are now doled out by liberal congressmen to friends and contributors.

There is movement toward bringing other industries under “regulatory control,” such as energy and agriculture. Among the more ominous proposals is the “bailing out” of the old media companies, such as the New York Times and the Chicago tribune. Combined with efforts to force pro government viewpoints onto the media by edict, the independence of our “free” press is significantly imperiled. You should be thinking Pravda here.

One of the reasons we are blind to fascism is that it appears to align with free market conservatism – which is totally inaccurate. When bailing out (co-opting) Wall Street, it appears that the Obama administration is siding with a conservative business community – the private sector. This is the dangerous myth. Any true conservative abhors the neo-fascists business leaders as much as anyone.

For those who take the time to notice, the current crop of business leaders are not free market zealots, but fellow travelers of the “big brother” types who now control our federal government. They are buying into the unholy partnership. Their chief mission is personal wealth, power and glory – with little regard for America’s entrepreneurial tradition and dying spirit. In short, the fanged wolf of fascism is better able to hide beneath the lamb skin of capitalism. Socialism has no disguise.

Despite their pro-big government bias, the independent trade unions will be big losers. Already, the gigantic public sector unions, such as _______ and _______, are turning into the 500 pound gorillas. The United Auto Workers are already co-opted by the GM take over. Trade unionism will survive, but only as a government agency of sorts -- like those in China.

As President Lincoln once feared, we are a nation divided. The anxiety and conflict we see at the grassroots is due to the fact that we have reached the fulcrum between the dominance of individual free-market capitalism that gave America its strength and the highest standard of living in the world and fascism's road to an oppressive central government and the eventual decline and fall of the American democracy, as we know it.

Under Obama, and the Chicago Way, we are most certainly moving swiftly toward a stronger and more dominant federal government. No sane person can auger against that. This path leads inevitably to authoritarianism. Socialism and fascism cannot prevail in a society were power is truly derived from, and exercized by, the masses.

The American fate is sealed unless this country has the strength and the understanding to not only slow down the intrusion of the federal government into all aspects of our daily lives, but to commence a rollback that will restore the powers of the several states and the municipal governments. It is there where the people have their strongest influence, and there where matters of education, welfare, police protection, etc. can be most responsively and economically managed.

If we continue to be suckered into thinking that all matters of our daily lives must be addressed by the distant federal government, we are witnessing the last days of "the great American experiment in democracy."

Of human bondage ... liberal style

2010-04-19T11:20:00.000-05:00

I was pondering our current economic and political situation and for some reason the term "slaves of the state" popped into my mind.

We know that the term had real meaning to the peasants of ancient China, the pyramid builders in the days of the pharaohs, the serfs of medieval Europe, the subjects of potentates, and even the proletariat of Communist Russia. In fact, it was not until the democratic experiment of the Greeks and Romans did mankind begin to envision of system of governance that was based on the assumed or God-given authority and inalienable rights of the governed. This has led to a growing global era of political, social and economic enlightenment -- and freedom. Central to political freedom was economic freedom -- to own property and freely distribute the earnings of one's labor. However, the forces of totalitarianism are an ever present danger.

Under one system, the people derive their rewards and success from the beneficence of the state -- be it a regime or an autocrat. You obey the rules of the state, turn over the fruits of your labor to the state for redistribution and accept the paternalistic care -- at least minimal care -- from the state according to the power elite's will, whims and their need to remain in power.

The key to any slavery is that the benefits of your labor are confiscated for the benefit of the slave master, first and foremost -- and subsequently doled out to those who support the system. In most cases, you, the peasant, receive only the barest of sustenance in return -- only a fraction of the value of your labor.

The key question is: When do you and I become slaves to the state? At which point is the confiscations of our personal wealth tantamount to slavery?

This is not a frivolous question. Most "slavery" does not come in the form of kidnapping, being sold to some private enterprise and whipped into submission. In fact, most slavery is the result of authoritarian governance -- slaves to the state. It can come by sweeping change as was the case in Chile, when the generals overthrew the democratically elected government. But, more often it comes by slow erosion, as the corruptive influence of power consumes more of our rights and freedoms with the false promise to improve the quality of our lives.

The most common characteristics of slavery is a wealthy elite and an impoverished captive laboring class. It is the same whether the enslaved is chattel or just subjected to the dependency on government for life's minimal essentials. If you look closely, you realize that the residents of the American socialist ghettos are captive -- stuck in generational poverty and segregated, figuratively and literally, from the personal opportunities of free market America.

You not only find slavery in America's Old South, but in every society governed by rulers. The evidence of the suffering of the masses in undemocratic societies is so overwhelming as to be indisputable. All-powerful governments produce deprived masses. It can be called communism, socialism, Marxism, feudalism, or whatever. The more the state possess decision-making power over the lives of the governed, the more the governed are "slaves of the state."

Many liberal political science professors like to proffer the theoretical benefits of a "benevolent dictatorship" as the potentially best form of government. However, significant examples of this "ideal" are impossible to find. Therefore it is safe to say that the more a government confiscates the value of our productivity, the more we are enslaved. More government means less freedom. Simple as that.

The Greco/Roman precepts of democracy have given those who live under them the most advanced and highest standard of living in history. Political freedom, the right to own property, pick our leaders, and engage in free market enterprise have brought the commoner personal wealth beyond the wildest imagination -- far better than even those in this modern world who are still enslaved to their state.

While state-desired innovation has occurred under totalitarian regimes, it pales compared to the staggering progress achieved for the masses under free market capitalism. The Soviet Union did not sire the technology that got them into space or balanced our nuclear advantage. They stole it. And while the Russians and Red Chinese were able to focus on specific competitive military technologies (the so-called "arms race"), the people of their nations lived two centuries behind the average American.

As Ronald Reagan said, we are always only one generation away from totalitarianism. The democratic revolution in France, that was to mimic our own, ended with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. The more democratic Mensheviks of the Russian Revolution were crushed by the brutal statism of the Bolsheviks. Democracies are always threatened by forces, internal and external, which would enslave the public. This is why Thomas Jefferson admonished us to "eternal vigilance."

So, what is the point.

The point is that we have every reason to be fearful with what is happening in Washington today. It is currently calculated that we already work for government from January 1 until mid August -- more than half a year. This means that more than half of the wealth you and I earn is confiscated and redistributed by government. For most of the year, we already are "slaves of the state."

As if that is not bad enough, we now have a regime in Washington determined to extend or servitude even more. Like all would-be dictatorship, they claim that the government must provide the benefits to society since you and I are not either capable enough or good enough. Like all statists, the radical Democrats currently in power demonize the producers of wealth as greedy and immoral -- and only their government can protect the poor, the infirmed, the needy, and the very natural world in which we live from the evil of our intentions.

This sounds good, like the pitch of the snake oil salesman, but look at the reality of their world. We need not look to history or overseas to find the examples of socialistic statism. Detroit was a city run by radical socialists. The most "liberal" (read that socialistic) states in America are on the verge of economic collapse.

After a speech in a African American church in one of Chicago's Democrat-run ghettos, I was challenged by an young lady to explain what free markets and capitalism has done for her. I told her, "Nothing." Before she got too smug, I explained that she does not live in free market American. She is trapped in socialist America -- an island of socialism surrounded by the obvious benefits for capitalism.

I often refer to the plight of modern inner city African Americans as the second great enslavement. They are trapped in dependency on the meager hand out of the government masters. Like the American slavery that ended with Abraham Lincoln, the new and more subtle economic slavery of today results in depravation of housing, depravation of food, depravation of healthcare, depravation of education, depravation of mobility and depravation of personal freedom. For meager considerations, the slaves of yore were to pick cotton. Today, the enslaved minorities provide the political plantation owners with votes.

More than anything, our founders were small "d" democrats, and more than anything they feared unbridled government as the enemy of the people. "The government that governs least, governs best." "A government that can give you anything, can take away everything." Their warnings ring through their writings, which, by no coincidence, are no longer taught in our government-run schools.

One can argue the extend of the danger in Washington today, but can anyone really say that we are not moving in the direction of an authoritarian regime? Already, the grip of Washington is so strong that many see it as inconceivable to take back the influence of the federal government.

Over the course of my blogs, I will examine this most critical issue from different perspectives.

Is the GOP being stupid ... again?

2010-04-09T10:56:00.000-05:00

As the saying goes, I have been around the block a few times ... and this political neighborhood is looking very familiar.

I am talking about the tendency of the GOP to win elections every day EXCEPT Election Day. I am hearting a lot of excitement and opitimism these days. Big gains in November are being predicted by pundits of every stripe. Some even say the pachyderm party will take control of the Congress.

Republicans are giddy becasue they believe the current mode will prevail through election day. The Democrats are willing to concede to any extreme prediction in order to make the GOP over confident. That is the Chicago way of politics.

Typically, the Democrats do not campaign seriously until eight weeks before Election Day. That strategy was told to me by a Chicago Democrat operative some 45 years ago, when I was president of my college Young Republicans. For a generation and a half, I have watch the GOP get sucker punched in the Land of Lincoln.

Fool me once, your shame. Fool me twice, my shame. Fool me for 45 years, my stupidity.

Wait until September, when the national Democrat machine, now run by David Axelrod and the Chicago political mob.

The healthcare battle should be a lesson to the ways of the Chicago crowd. Vicory and vanquish. They are without doubt the most partisan and ruthless political characters in America.

Back again ... and better than ever?

2010-04-09T10:43:00.000-05:00

Been a really incredible six months since I last posted. Rather than get into all the details, let me just say that it is good to be back ... and I hope I can be more disciplined in the future.

No No Nobel Prize ... and why not?

2009-10-14T16:12:00.000-05:00

Nothing gives more evidence of the narrow philosophic view of the grantors of the Nobel Peace Prize than the omission of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

The bold diplomacy of Nixon transformed China from dangerous adversary to friendly trading partner. In bringing down the old Soviet Union, Reagan ended the 40 year Cold War. No diplomatic efforts in

modern times have brought more global peace and stability.

The largely failed or nonexistent peace making accomplishments of Nobel winners Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama fade to inconsequential by comparison. If you add Al Gore as another recent political recipient, the Nobel Peace Prize becomes a farce.

Peace prize and past presidents

2009-10-13T23:10:00.000-05:00

When it comes to awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S, presidents, the folks in Oslo have had a dubious record. Four American Chief Executives have received the Award: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and now Barack Obama.

Roosevelt was famous for his statement that American should “speak softly, but carry a big stick.” Of course, the “big stick” was military might, which he tended to deploy with little hesitancy. The bellicose Mr. Roosevelt was never known to speak softly – literally or figuratively.

Woodrow Wilson let this nation into the “war to end all wars” – which it did not. Perhaps the Nobel committee was impressed with his failed effort to create a League of Nations. They were, and are consistent promoters of unitary global governance. They apparently were not concerned that Wilson was a virulent racist who segregated the armed forces, among other things.

Then there was Jimmy Carter, who produced a series of high visibility summits and peace accords in the Middle East. You may be aware that the good work of Jimmy Carter has not provided a moment of peace in that region.

And into this undistinguished field cometh Barack Obama., taking time away from managing two major wars (in Carter’s Middle East, no less) to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. In one way, he may be more deserving than the others. Where they have all failed, Obama has done nothing.

Nothing Noble about the Nobel Prize for Obama

2009-10-13T22:05:00.000-05:00

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is not about his accomplishments in advancing world harmony. He has none. In fact, his continuation of the war in Iraq -- despite his campaign promises -- his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, his appropriate threats against Iran’s nuclear program and the unveiling of America's newest super bomb would have brought George Bush the derision of the left-wing Nobel committee.

Why then the prize?

It is quite simple. The Nobel folks did not award Obama the Prize in recognition of any accomplishments, but as a means of promoting his embrace of their “after America” global view in which the United States is only a participant in an international collective, not a noble leader. The Obama doctrine repudiates the concepts of America as an inspiring beacon of democracy, as well as the traditional “America first” perspective of his 42 predecessors. Not since President Franklin Pierce secretly aligned with the Confederacy has a president stood in such opposition to the fundamentals of America.

Obama’s increase in world popularity results from his decision to build himself into a global personality at the expense of a weaker America, political and economically. From community organizer to President of the United States, Obama has always found comfort with the critics of America -- not just differences over policy, but a repudiation our fundamental concepts of limited government, personal freedom and free market capitalism. In many ways, he is the anti-Reagan.

The awarding of this year’s Prize does not reflect Obama’s accomplishments, but reveals in stark clarity the vehemently anti-American view of the Oslo committee. To have them in premature praise and promotion of this President ought to have us significantly concerned about what they find so appealing about him.

A postmortem on the postmortem of Ted Kennedy

2009-10-13T21:27:00.000-05:00

Have we passed the mourning period for Ted Kennedy yet? Since his name now appears in the press less than Princess Di, I assume we have. I did not want to seem disrespectful at the moment of the Senator’s internment, and I thought I should wait to see if my reflections of the moment would prevail over time. They did, and I assume it is now safe to be disrespectful.

You see, there was a moment in time that I thought the Kennedy industry would set aside their usual pompous self importance and their habit of putting everything in their lives (and deaths) to some partisan political advantage. They presume that somehow their personal affairs (no pun intended) are of epic historic proportions. If their family constitutes an American dynasty it should be appropriately known as the Dysfunctional Dynasty.

I was hoping for some dignity in the latest Kennedy nationalized funeral. Now, I said “dignity” – not to be confused with pomposity and grandeur. In that, they are without peers. To be brutally blunt, the funeral and the reporting thereof, especially the left wing blogs, made me puke – well, figuratively.

The objectives of the Hyannis Port public relations machine were three-fold. First, was the effort to sanitize a history of debauchery and immorality that characterized the youngest of the Kennedy boys to a greater degree than his older siblings. No small task, to be sure. Second, to advance his legislative agenda. Third, to create the illusion of good standing with his Catholic Church.

I know one does not usually delineate shortcomings in obituaries – although the most dramatically flawed public figures often find their peccadilloes noted along side the accomplishments in the public press --especially if they are conservative or Republican.

However, the Kennedy obits, written and spoken, created an entirely fictional character. Listening to one speaker after another delineating the biography of Kennedy, the man, I was unable to find anything recognizable from my 45-years of observation of his public life (and a few personal involvements with him). Funereal protocol aside, I must say, there was not much to admire about the man other than his successful grasp of fame, fortune and power.

The second mission of the Hyannis Port public relations machine was to put as much steam behind the faltering healthcare legislation as possible. The funeral was less a wake than a lobbying event. “Single payer” and “public option” were as common an uttering as the more conventional “doesn’t he look good” and “he will be missed.”

Any hope of solemnity and dignity, evaporated in the crassly political content of the various memorial events. The Intercessions portion of the high Mass (in which God is called upon to bless specific pleadings) became a roll call of his liberal legislative agenda. Apparently, the Lion of the Senate was channeling his political roar through his own requiescat.

Obituary after obituary favorably referenced Kenney’s political causes, with an array of political guests advancing the illogical notion that Kennedy’s demise should, for some reason, end opposition to the liberal agenda – especially the current healthcare bill. Some suggested that they should pin Kennedy’s name on H.R. 3200 as if that, in and of itself, would de-putrefy the proposal.

Thirdly, there was the painfully obvious effort to turn the apostate into a devout Catholic. I do not think Mother Theresa could have been deemed a more faithful Catholic than the dead Kennedy based on the eulogies.

The low point was the letter to the Pope from the dying senator, carried to His Eminence by none other than President Barack Obama – perhaps the most powerful messenger angel ever so deployed. Keeping with the Democrats’ and the Kennedy’s propensity for the grand scale lie, Kennedy introduced the President to the Pope as a man of enormously deep faith.—who, incidentally, is still trying to figure out where to attend church in D.C.

The epistle to the Pope was nothing less than a pre-posthumous, self-serving stunt to make Kennedy appear to be a devout Catholic. It, too, contained Kennedy’s legislative agenda. The letter carried to the Pope served both the legislative and the canonization purposes.

However, the Holy Father was to smart to be suckered into a backhanded absolution of Kennedy’s Catholic failures. Teddy received a reply from a staffer that was more or less a boilerplate “thanks for your letter” response, with a promise of some prayers on the Senator’s behalf -- much like the letter my wife’s grandmother received posthumously from the previous Vicar of Christ via a staffer.

The grandeur of the Catholic funeral would suggest the demise of one of the Knights of Malta. The praise of powerful clerics reinforced the image. Kennedy’s own priest/confidant gave an obituary that was so biased that even the press called it an attempt to refute any critics who might question Kennedy’s devotion to and good standing with the Church of Rome. Not only was Kennedy given the appearance of a general absolution for his apostasy, but it was alleged that his separation from the Catholic Church never occurred.

Despite the best efforts of the powerful Kennedy media mill, there were hints of the bad Catholic Kennedy. In a sly political move, the funeral was shifted from the likely Boston Cathedral to a lesser church so there would be an excuse for Cardinal Seán P. O'Malley to take a pass on officiating. He had been under considerable of pressure from pro-life Catholics to reject a high ritual canonization-style ceremony. At Arlington Cemetery, it was retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who did the honors.

Dealing with the letter from the Pope …er … not the Pope, the Kennedy media spinners began selling the notion that it is the tradition of the Pope to answer through underlings. Of course, this is true for all the mundane mail the Pontiff receives, but the Pope actually does communicate in writing when he see fit. He did not see fit in this case. Put in its proper perspective, the Pope showed more contempt than respect for the public relations gimmick.

According to the Catholic Church, anyone who engages in abortions, patient or practitioner, and anyone who supports abortions exists outside the Catholic communion. It is an excommunicable offense – beyond the simple matter of confession and absolution. Repentance and forgiveness requires a course correction. Senior Church theologians have placed the encouragement of abortions as an automatic excommunication. You will recall that when running for President, Senator John Kerry was denied communion for his stand on abortion.

It seems to me that no amount of power and money, and no level of corruption within the Church, can alter God’s mandates as Catholic teachings state and enforce them. On this issue alone, Kennedy cannot offer himself as a devout Catholic adherent. He may not have been a Catholic at all in the eyes of the true Church.

The Catholic Church’s bending to the power and money of the Kennedys has garnered it significant and well deserved disrespect. Bending dogma to accommodate Kennedy’s cash-on-the-barrelhead annulment of his 25-year marriage to his first wife and mother of his children; to overlook his stand on abortion, the Church’s most fundamental issue of the day; and to turn a blind eye to his public infidelity and his repeated tendency to cause scandal (another major Catholic no-no) have all harmed the Church more than it helped him. The Church’s granting him its highest rituals, honors and endorsements have shown the Boston Catholic hierarchy to be as easily bought off as a Chicago city inspector.

Even from the grave, Kennedy is his own salesman. His recent book is little more than a long press release to spin his tawdry legacy into a Camelot fantasy. To entitle his autobiography “True Compass” is reflective of his unmitigated gall. “Crooked Shillelagh” might have been a more appropriate title.

Following the assassination of brother John Kennedy, there was a folk ballad with the lament “Johnny we hardly know ya.” In hearing the funeral oratory and examining the posthumous autobiography, one can come to the same conclusion about Teddy.

The Lion of the Senate will roar no more

2009-08-27T15:28:00.000-05:00

On the passing of Ted Kennedy, we are being deluged with nothing short of a canonization obituaries – as if extreme praise will obliterate the facts of his personal history. The Kennedy family, their circle of friends and the press have always been treated like royalty. The occasions of their lives are always cast as some seminal historic event. Only the gods of Olympus could equal Kennedy's thundering oratory.

Certainly, Kennedy was a powerful senator, and a political tour de force. I give him that much. I will also respect the left’s affection for a man who carried the standard for so many of their causes.

But there is the other reality. The man had the personal ethics of a back alley crap shooter. Throughout most of his life he was noted for his lapses, not his achievements. He got into Harvard not on the merits of his intellect or academic achievement, but simply due to the pocketbook of his parents – a practice that has brought scandal down on the University of Illinois system. He was bounced out of Harvard twice for cheating. Daddy’s money took care of that.

He was both cowardly and criminal in leaving the scene of an accident that cost the life of MaryJo Kopechne. He ran from the scene in an attempt to conceal his involvement. He called family and political aides before police and medics. Reports suggest that the young lady had enough air trapped in the submerged vehicle to have survived a rescue. One judge said outright that the late senator was the cause of MaryJo’s death. By all accounts, the distinguished senator from Massachusetts was guilty of vehicular homicide. Again the Kennedy money thwarted justice and accountability.

He destroyed is first marriage, and almost destroyed his first wife, with womanizing, drunkenness and belligerence. His fame and financial contributions to a corrupt Catholic Church system bought him a unique annulment after a long consummated marriage with children – and disrespect to the Church that genuflected to the Kennedy power and wealth.

While his office issued central casting photos of a handsome statesman with flowing white hair, the tabloids had a field day showing the real Ted Kennedy as a blubberous drunken sot cavorting with an endless string of women.

The man dubbed as the “Lion of the Senate” by a fawning gallery of liberal leaders was really more of an alley cat.

He slowed down in later years, his body somewhat ravaged by decades of abuse. Once it was obvious the Kennedy clan had no inherited right to the Oval Office, and his flaws were great to win public acceptance as the nation’s leader, Kennedy seemed to focus on his career almost exclusively. Perhaps there was a moment of epiphany -- a redemption that somehow escaped the Kennedy public relations machine. I hope so. I hope he found his way to heaven. I really do. But that does not mean I find his departure from this mortal shore an uncompromised loss. It still could be that he took more from this world than he gave.

It is ironic that the Democrats should lose his voice and his vote as Congress comes to a moment of truth on Kennedy’s trademark issue – nationalized healthcare.

May he rest in peace.

FOOTNOTE: One way to look at the excessive attention given the Kennedys is to look a political family with an equally impressive record of public service – the apparently more humble Bush family. Old Prescott was a U.S. Senator for Connecticut. His son, George H., was in Congress, headed the CIA, served as ambassador to China, Vice President and then President of the United States. In the third generation, George W. was in Congress, then Governor of Texas and on to the White House. George W.’s brother served as Governor of Florida. The Kennedy advantage in gaining public attention may be due to monumental ego, dysfunctionality to the point of repeated scandal, and liberal bonefides that turned the press and historians in to flaks.

OP ED: Burris burrows in ... as well he should.

2009-02-23T23:09:00.000-06:00

Many in the pundits in the press conjecture that Illinois Senator Roland Burris (pictured with Senate President Harry Reid) will have to resign as a result of the onslaught of negative publicity fomented by the press, itself. This media feeding frenzy has been given more heft than it deserves by a gaggle or self-serving politicians who either have an interest in replacing Burris with themselves of an ally, or merely see piling on as a hook to get their name and face in the press for another day. The psychology that is driving this hyper hype is the same that leads mobs of otherwise descent people to “take matters into their own hands” as an outcome of irrational hysteria.

So many of those calling for Burris’ resignation claim to respect him and consider him a friend. They cite his distinguished career. He is often described simply, but meaningfully, as “a good man.” Are we to conclude from this that the U.S. Senate is no place for “a good man?”

More specifically, all the jawboning and editorializing in the world cannot force the resignation. Only the U.S. Senate can expel a member, and it is more than likely that the collegial Upper Chamber lacks the authority or resolve to take such action in this case.

There are two major reasons that Burris should not resign. First, he has done nothing that warrants his stepping down. Yes, there have been inconsistencies in his testimonies and affidavits – nothing, according to prosecutors, that rises to the level of perjury. Despite media smears that have label Burris an egregious liar, his inconsistencies are not too far outside the range of anyone being asked questions in different ways on different occasions -- and certainly nothing near the level of prevarication by those who now smugly demand his ouster. Unfortunately, such hypocrisy is pandemic in politics.

The second reason is that Burris needs to complete his current term to have any chance to reclaim his hitherto pristine reputation as public official. For some 30 years, Burris was praised by the political, civic and business communities as an outstanding public servant and honorable man – never even a hint of scandal (quite and accomplishment in Illinois). But even that history has been twisted, distorted and re-written by press and politicians to further demonize him. Once known for his friendly manner, accessibility and humility, Burrs is now labeled an arrogant hack.

If he were to resign today, he would slip into the shadow of public attention as the press created caricature. He would leave the public stage with the unfounded accusations of his detractors as his legacy.

Some say that the controversy leaves him powerless to perform his duties. How so? He still has all the powers of his office, his intellect and his skills. He can and will wheel and deal with the best of them. His colleagues are not likely to shun him for the benefit of the home town lynch mob – especially since they need his vote to stay close to that veto proof number and he still has the distinction and advantage of being the Senate’s token African American.

Once it is obvious that he will not resign, I suspect the media will cool down and shift lens and pens to some new political reality show – new indictments, new scandals, new investigations, the trial of Rod Blagojevich (or maybe just the antics of Rod Blagojevich). This will give Burris an opportunity to settle in as a hard working Senator for another 18 months – and longer if the public suddenly finds their incited anger turning to a sense of guilt.

People in the public eye are often advised to step down at the peak of the career to lock in their future reputation. Conversely, it is not advisable to step down at the nadir.

REACT: Making your car a tax taxi.

2009-02-22T15:56:00.000-06:00

It just goes to show that you cannot rely on Republicans to have any respect for American freedom. They can be as avaricious of tax money and as contemptuous of public privacy and freedom as any so-called progressive Democrat. Big Brother has more than a few siblings in the GOP camp. How bad can it be if President Barack Obama has to oppose a federal government tax increase and power grab proposed by one of his own Cabinet members -- an infamous RINOs (Republican In Name Only), to be sure?

Once again the American public was about to be hoodwinked, or should I say LaHood-winked. Seems that newly minted Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, an Illinois insider Republican (need I say more?) has proposed that drivers be taxed on the miles driven by having a GPS unit mandated for all cars (increasing the sticker price, of course). Essentially, you car becomes a tax taxi.

LaHood proposed to nationalize a concept that is being explored in a few states, including Massachusetts (need I say more?). The mileage charge would vary according to the driving locations. City drivers, where there is more congestion, would pay a higher rate. Rural drivers, where cow flatulence is the most serious pollutant according to our environmental geniuses in Washington, would be taxed at lower rates. The GPS feature, will allow that rate to change automatically as you travel from zone to zone. Of course, government issued cars would not be taxed.

One of the outcomes of this creative taxing is a form of punishment for drivers using low-fuel consumption vehicles. The feds are afraid that lower usage will reduce tax revenues. Duh!

Now … they could just increase the gas tax to achieve the same result. So, why not? Because … this new form of taxation will provide government with two things it loves almost as much as our money. It will give them a reason to establish another cancerous bureaucracy (probably in LaHood’s DOT) and provide a windfall of personal tracking information on every citizen in America.

I suspect the next group in support of this will be law enforcement officials, who will claim that they can track suspects through this system. No one can argue that constant, around-the-clock surveillance of all citizens can reduce the crime rate. But … a police state is not what the founders had in mind.

Fortunately, President Obama has slapped down his Trans Secretary in rather firm tones. This will not be the policy of his administration. Whether he comes to this out of conviction or political savvy – realizing the public backlash that would ensure – is of no consequence. Give him credit where credit is due.

Footnote: Anyone who thought LaHood would bring conservative Republican values to his new post does not know him or the political environment from whence he comes. Putting him at DOT is akin of inviting the fox in the hen house – case in point.

NOTABLE QUOTABLE: The voice of Ronald Reagan

2009-02-14T15:44:00.000-06:00

Sometimes a person writes something that cannot be improved by analysis or editing. I recently read this article by Michael Reagan, son of the late President. Rather then regurgitate his points with less eloquence, I thought you should just read what he wrote. So here it is.

Requiem For A Republic
By Michael Reagan
February 14, 2009

It is not true that grown men don't cry. I'm grown and I'm on the verge of tears. A Republic I have loved all my life is being is being murdered and the crime is an inside job.

If you hear a whirring sound in the background it is my dad Ronald Reagan, who loved and served this nation, spinning in his grave as his latest successor plunges a carving knife into America's vital organs.

In his wildest dreams Ronald Reagan never thought that a president of a United States, now in the throes of a serious economic crisis, would adopt a solution to the problems of our economy that would not only worsen the situation, but set in motion the beginning of a transition of the government of the United States from a Constitutional Republic into a coercive quasi-Marxist regime where Washington is the master of our people instead of their servant.

Let it be said loud and clear: Barack Obama's so-called stimulus bill, feverishly embraced by his sticky-fingered Democratic minions in the House and Senate (and three craven Republican senators), will not do a single thing to revive our ailing economy. Nothing.

Instead it will put Washington's grasping hands into every nook and cranny of America's economic and social life, and bankrupt an already penurious nation for generations to come.

Think about it -- nearly a trillion dollars to be squandered on a host of pork-laden projects, payoffs to pet leftist groups and causes grasping for their share of the booty, and a few bucks to create jobs, mostly in the public sector.

A trillion dollars we don't have and will need to borrow from our grandchildren and their offspring. A trillion dollars created out of thin air that will drastically reduce the value of the dollars in our pockets in an orgy of runaway inflation.

It wasn't all that long ago that spending a billion dollars on government projects and programs was viewed with alarm. As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen once said, "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

A trillion dollars is $1000 billion, a sum that the imagination cannot comprehend.

If you could have spent a million dollars every day since Christ was born you would not even come close to having spent a trillion dollars, yet Mr. Obama and his wastrel Democratic stooges on Capitol Hill have no qualms about spending that amount -- and more -- on programs that will do nothing to alleviate the current economic crisis, and in many ways worsen it.

Have we forgotten what Thomas Jefferson warned us when in 1791? He said, "To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we (will then) be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they (will) be happy."

Jefferson would have refused to believe that a free people would allow their government to saddle them and their children and grandchildren with a debt so enormous they could not even begin to comprehend.

Nor would he have even dreamt of the government wasting money on projects noted by former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, such as a billion dollars to subsidize money-losing Amtrak, $20 billion to expand the already-bloated food stamp program, about $2 billion diverted from the wallets of hard-working Americans to subsidize childcare, and $2.8 billion to fund advocacy programs studying the global-warming hoax.

There's another $600 million for newer cars for government bureaucrats $44 million to refurbish the Department of Agriculture, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, and $150 million to spruce up the Smithsonian buildings and more than $400 million to promote anti-smoking programs and programs to fight sexually transmitted diseases.

That's what future generations of Americans will be paying for. I'm sure they'll thank us.

OP ED: Holiday angst

2009-02-14T15:12:00.000-06:00

I get a little testy about the February holiday season.

First there is SAINT Valentine's Day. I am by far not a holy roller, but I resent the so-called mainstream transforming this day to simply "Valentine's Day" out of some politically correct secularization. I not only fault the liberal goo goos, but the media and the card, candy and carnation advertisers for censoring the traditional name of the holiday. St. Valentine was a real person, and this celebration of loving kindness has historic roots in the St. Valentine legend.

Then there is Presidents' Day. We once celebrated the individual birthdays of our first President, George Washington, and our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, with separate days in February. Now we have some nebulous day recognizing all our chief executives. Some how, lumping Washington and Lincoln in with Millard Fillmore, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton is an abomination. I think the Martin Luther King holiday is fine, but it seems ironic that he can have his own day and the likes of Washington and Lincoln are shuffled in a deck with a few too many jokers. In fact, King is the only person in American history now to have his own personal national holiday. No matter how much you admire King, that is just not right.

I TOLD YA SO: Blago hits the celebrity trail

2009-02-04T15:50:00.000-06:00

After the booting out of office of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, a lot of the smarty pants reporters and pundits were lamenting their belief that the colorful and headline making public official would sink into some sort of oblivion. I predicted that he would continue to maintain high visibility as a celebrity in his own right. Well, one look at his post-ouster national media schedule and you can see that Blago is going to give Paris Hilton a run as the spotlight hog of the year. He even appeared on the David Letterman Show. That's star status.

Frankly, I'm at a loss to see why so many reporters and columnists think the media tour is so stupid. What do they expect -- that he will sulk at home until the feds carry him off to court for a quick trial before he is marched up to the gallows?

The media schtick makes perfect sense. He is getting a lot of criticism for what some think is an attempt to influence future jurors -- you know, makes him sort of human, funny and maybe some of his protestations of innocence will be persuasive? And why not? What's he got to lose.

Granted ... he could not deflect the impeachment by the Illinois House and conviction by the Illinois Senate. And despite all the swagger in public, it is mostly likely that he is going to get convicted and sent to the pen. In the meantime, he will be one of the more interesting personalities this side of Drew Pearson.

REACT: Recalling the uterus

2009-01-30T16:39:00.001-06:00

Warning: This blog is a bit "salty" as they used to say. If you are clueless, it means that there is adult content and language herein. X-rated, as they say today. Maybe only R -- if you are more liberal in these matters.

As they used to say on Monty Python ... and now for something completely different.

Despite the title over this blog, it is not about some reminiscence of the womb. No. It seems a newly introduced toy "plush uterus" (yeah, you read it right) had to be recalled because the ovaries constitute a "choking hazard." (I will not proceed until you stop laughing -- and hopefully you are not now spewing out a mouth full of coffee.) This news report invites an almost endless number of comedic and/or vulgar retorts. However, you will have to think of them on your own since I will not indulge you with mine.

What I will express is my utter bewilderment as to why this toy was ever conceived. (<-- Did I use a poor choice of words in that sentence?) What parent, in their right mind would bring home this furry piece of anatomy for their daughter? And surely not for their son. My suspicion is that this is a product directed at wacko feminist mommies. You know ... the ones that go to the theatre to see a production the title of which refers to a vocal version of the same organ. Someone should tell them that when their darling daughter asked for a furry pussy, she probably meant a cat.

And what can you do with this toy besides sucking off the ovaries? Cuddle with it? Use it as a pillow? Banish THAT image from my mind. I am not sure what this toy is called. I'm thinking maybe Miss Cutie C*nt would work.

Is this to be an educational toy? If so, will these enlightened little girls reach puberty thinking that they will grow fuzz insides like the telltale hair in all those other body places? And what about that smiley face? Frankly, if I had just looked at this "thing" without prior knowledge, my first guess would not have been a uterus. Way no. I would be thinking a colorized Casper the Ghost carrying a couple plums. Or maybe Barney as a baby. How educational is that?

No boys' version? No Mr. Cuddle C*ck? Maybe the manufactures recognized the obvious chocking hazard without having our government have to tell them. Also, how do you market a symbol of manhood to those wacky fems? Still, I think if we want boys and girls to play well with each other, there needs to be some equity here.

I am also disturbed by the concept of "sharing." I am certainly not the type of parent to advise my daughter to share her uterus with her friends. And I do not want to console my little sweetheart because the boy next store took her uterus and won't give it back. Even worse ... I may have to go next door and tell the parents that their son has my daughter's uterus and will not give it back.

Enough already. Next time you take the kids to the local toy store, make sure you check out the X-rated section.

OBSERVATION: Random thoughts on Blago's political demise.

2009-01-30T15:40:00.000-06:00

I have a few closing thoughts on the ousting of Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Thought One: Almost unnoticed in the impeachment and removal from office of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was a provision that he be barred from ever again running for office in Illinois. I think this is overkill … piling on. Frankly, I think the Legislature is way out of bounds in preventing him from running for any office in the future – including Governor.

I mean, I wouldn’t vote for him. His chance of being elected to any major office is pretty minimal. However, I think he should have the right to run, and the voting public should have the right to decide to hire him or not – and not be pre-empted by a mob of over heated politicians.

While the odds suggest Blago will get indicted and convicted, that is not a certainty. What if he beats the rap? He is then an innocent man. What then?

Thought Two: I wonder … if this all happened one year earlier, would Barack Obama have made it to the White House. For sure, the world outside of Illinois had no idea just how corrupt is the political environment that spawned President Obama. So much of life is timing. (I put this item in as a shameless means to get a photo of Obama in the Blog and attract search engines. Forgive me ... but it seems the thing to do these day.)

Thought Three: I heard some pundits chagrining the fact that they will not have Rod Blagojevich around to generate news. They opined that he will now fade into the shadows of public attention. I think not. In fact, I expect Blago to continue to be a very highly visible public figure -- continuing to champion his cause in the main spotlight. More interestingly, he is very likely to seek revenge on his enemies – now as a citizen accuser – by dragging them before the same court of public opinion in which he was convicted.

While the self righteous political leaders sell themselves as the noble civic tribunes, I sort of think of them a bit more like Mafia don’s disposing of one of their own – you know – the guy that became a “problem” to the bosses. There is one of these characters in every mob movie.

Also, I am sure Blago knows where a lot of political bodies are buried and the impeachers forgot to take away his shovel. In view of the large volume of taped conversations, I suspect that a lot of others will find their hitherto secret schemes exposing them to a lot of embarrassment, minimally, and maybe criminal complicity. I dare say, old Blago could actually wind up being an unintentional agent of reform.

So cheer up sports fans. We are about to go into extra innings.

Thought Four: Most objective observers seem to agree that the press lost all sense of fairness and impartiality in the coverage of Barack Obama. It would appear that is also true in the case of Rod Blagojevich -- althought it was wrath, not adulation, that powered the disturbing bias. I mean, I don't like Blago at all, but I expect the media to adhere to traditional standards of professional objectivity. Rather than report on the issues, they scolded him, mocked him, belittled him. He was ravaged from every perspective ... news, editorials, columns and talk shows. At times, I could not tell if Blago's antics or the reporting of them was more outrageous. I guess both politicians and the press lose their perspective when offered an opportunity to be pompous.

Thought Five: Is the Blago saga reminding you -- as it is me -- of the Huey Long (right) epic? If you recall, he was the highly corrupt populist governor of Lousiana. He also was removed from office, but by only one disgruntled government employee with a gun. Blago had 59 disgruntled government employees with an impeachment. Ballots. Bullets? Same result ... well ... almost. If you have no idea what I am talking about, go to Blockbuster and rent the movie. All the King's Men. The author of the story claimed it was not about Huey Long. Yeah! Right! Just like Citizen Kane is not about William Randolph Hearst.

REACT: Governor ousted ... but was it proper?

2009-01-30T15:07:00.000-06:00

First the obligatory disclaimer: I am no fan of Governor Rod Blagojevich. I did not like his policies. I think he is most likely guilty of criminal conduct, and will be convicted and sent to prison. I think he deserves no less.

BUT …

I am equally distressed by the way he was removed from office. What transpired is the closest thing to a coup that I have seen under our American system of “innocent until proven guilty” and the quoted more than implemented “rule of law.”

First, there was the highly questionable press conference by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (who I admire greatly). According to many legal experts, he was out of bounds in bringing the case against the Governor to the court of public opinion before he was ready to announce an indictment. In fact, to this day Blago has not been indicted of any crime. Without that press conference to stir the public against the Governor, and coalesce his political adversaries, there would not have been any serious discussion of an impeachment – bad as Blago may be.

Second, there is the question of the impeachment process. Repeatedly noting that it is a “political process,” and not a judicial process, the leaders of the Illinois House and Senate still failed to explain why “fairness” should not be a consideration. In a unique irony, the Governor was barred by the U.S. Attorney’s office from obtaining testimony from those who might be on the witness list for his eventual criminal trial. He could not cross examine witnesses. The Senate-as-court could only listen to a few minutes out of thousands of hours of wire taped conversations because most of the real “evidence” was being withheld for the trial.

Third: It was not a secret vote. While one may say this provided transparency for the public, it really put the “jury” under the pressure of the mob. The secret ballot protects the individual from the intimidation and retribution of the public. I am quite confident that a secret ballot would have produced a number of “no” votes.

Fourth, since it was quite obvious that the Legislature could not prove a “high crimes and misdemeanors” case, they switched to the less specific “abuse of power” accusation. This dubious charge is in the eye of the beholder. By most standards, the Governor’s battles with the Legislature would not rise to impeachment and removal from office – in fact, the notion of impeachment was not even hinted at the time he took the actions now condemned. This means that the central charges against the Governor were not the accusations of the U.S. Attorney, but things he did several years ago that angered members of the Legislature. In other words, those sitting in judgment took advantage of the public anger over the unproven criminal charges to oust the Governor on the vague “abuse” charges.

Fifth, the leaders of the impeachment effort have demonstrated both chutzpah and hypocrisy. Not only did they not accuse the Governor of abuse of power at the time of the alleged abuse, but they praised him, endorsed him, and served on his campaign committee for re-election in the interim. His abuses of power were not recently discovered, only recently defined by those who engaged in the very same processes as one time comrades-in arms.

Yes, it is good that Blago is gone. And yes, Patrick Quinn (left, being sworn in) will most probably make a better governor. However, the impeachment should only be the first step in a broader effort to clean up Illinois government. The political assassins need to be brought to justice next -- if nothing more than to be booted from office in the next election. Though they will now blame the former Governor for every ill in Illinois, they are still part of the business-as-usual process that has brought national shame to the Land of Lincoln.

TIDBIT: Gore gets frozen out?

2009-01-15T22:39:00.000-06:00

Is there a correlation, or is it just a coincidence? As the prolonged cold across America reaches record lows in one place after another, I seem to notice a reduction in media interviews with Al Gore, the Pied Piper of global warming.

REACT: Congratulations to SENATOR Roland Burris -- a good man for the job

2009-01-15T20:02:00.000-06:00

Today, Roland Burris was sworn in as the junior senator from Illinois, just as he predicted he would be. For the most part, his critics are fools, liars and hypocrites – or people with flagrant self interests.

First and foremost, we should recognize that in Burris the people of Illinois have an outstanding public servant as their new senator -- not withstanding the unfair and scurrilous criticisms flung at him by pandering political leaders and a public press on a feeding frenzy,

Burris has been one of the most descent public officials in recent history. In an Illinois environment of pay-to-play, insider deals, bribery, vote fraud, cronyism, nepotism, abuse of office, etc., Burris has kept his integrity. He has been faithful to the calling of public service.

He was the first African-American to win statewide office. In sixteen years in office, eight as Comptroller and eight as Attorney General, he was not once the subject of scandal. Somehow his unsuccessful bids for later offices are held against him despite the fact that those campaigns were run with dignity, intelligence and integrity. Losing an election is no sin – and consider for one moment the caliber of those who beat him.

Burris’ critics come in two varieties. The first group is composed of the revisionists, who once praised and endorsed him for public office in the past. On the basis of nothing more than their almost crazed desire to “get” Governor Rod Blagojevich (who certainly deserves to be “got,” and will be), they have turned on Burris like rabid dogs.

For the revisionists, the mere acceptance of a seat in the U.S. Senate wiped out a long, distinguished and honorable career in politics. In maligning Burris, they are re-writing history. Burris is retroactively declared to be a hack politician, an ego maniac, a scumbag of sorts.

What Burris did is not illegal. It is not immoral. It is not even the slightest disservice to the public. As a career politician, his interest and willingness to accept a historic senate seat is understandable. I suspect there are a lot of “good people” who would have done the same. I would have.

Then there are those who still say Burris is a “good man” … “qualified” … “competent” … but he should not have been seated due to the sins of the appointer. They say the appointment is “tainted.” There opposition has nothing to do with Burris as a person. It is that damn Blagojevich.

This is nothing less than guilt by association – and a hypocritical double standard, to boot. Many of the very same people who wrap Blago around Burris had, themselves, close working relationships with the Governor. Lt. Governor Pat Quinn was his running mate for re-election even as the feds were closing in. Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan was Blago’s campaign co-chairman. Much of the media that now demonizes Burris by the proxy of Blagojevich endorsed the Governor’s re-election on their editorial pages.

Taking it personal … I have known Roland for almost 30 years as a friend and as a member of the board of the City Club of Chicago, in the days I served as its executive director. Though I generally leaned Republican, he always had my support because of his competency and decency.

Though much has been made of his monumental grave marker, Roland has always been a humble and unpretentious man. I have never known him to use race to his advantage or as an excuse.

No matter how he got there, or who appointed him, or the twisted logic that places the wrongs of the Governor on his shoulders, I know one thing for sure. Illinois has sent a good man to Washington, and I am confident that he will serve the people of Illinois with effectiveness, dedication and integrity.

REACT: Jose Serrano: The man who would have a king

2009-01-15T19:16:00.000-06:00

I knew it! I knew it! I knew it!

I recently told my son that I would not be surprised if there was an effort to rescind the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the one that limits a President to two terms – now that the Democrats have a lock on Congress and a potentially popular President.

The tradition of two terms was established by George Washington, who appreciated the risk of a President amassing too much power by a life time in office. That is the manner of despots, not (small d) democrats.

It was a good tradition and one that was honored out of principle until a (big D) Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt (right, in cape), recognized and seized the opportunity to become America’s dictator – well almost. His authoritarian lust was stopped by what was left of the democratic spirit and by the Creator, who called FDR home before he could complete his quest for power.

Realizing just how close we came to an omnipotent President, the Congress passed the 22nd Amendment. The Amendment legislation was supported and signed by the man best able to see close up the corrupting influence of prolonged power, FDR's own Vice President, Harry Truman (right). Many of those who supported FDR’s policies endorsed the Amendment. It was a close call for America, and they knew it.

Since Democrats tend to be the party of power over principle, one could anticipate that the temptation to institutionalize their advantage and status would manifest itself in a number of ways – and perpetual power for a President is one of them.

Rising to the occasion is Congressman Jose Serrano (left), a New York City Democrat (which says a lot). He has introduced legislation that would abolish the term limit for the President – not just a President, but for HIS President, Barack Obama. It is a flagrant attempt to seize power for his party, nothing more … nothing less.

Serrano’s desire to prolong the tenure of the head of state maybe explains, or is explained by, his unwavering support and affection for Cuba’s long time dictator, Fidel Castro. Serrano obviously has no respect for the “liberty” portion of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

This is such a bad idea that I would hope his constituents would throw him out of office at the very next opportunity. Unfortunately, his overwhelmingly Hispanic district returns him to Congress by margins that have exceeded 90 percent.

I think any member of Congress who signs on as a co-sponsor of this awful and dangerous legislation should be bounced … and any member who votes for it. These are people who have a dangerous lack of appreciation for the safeguards that have preserved our basic liberties for more than 200 years.

Washington was wise and noble to propose the limit on himself and his successors. When voluntary compliance failed, the Congress was wise to include the protection in the Constitution.

This is an issue upon which President Obama must be very clear and convincing in his opposition. Any equivocation should bring down an avalanche of negative public opinion. At least I sure hope so.

REACT: Blago impeached AGAIN!!! But not in the eyes of his sister-in-law.

2009-01-14T16:04:00.001-06:00

It was only a technicality. The newly seated Illlinois House had to reaffirm the vote of the outgoing assembly. This time the vote to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich was 117 to 1.

The "all in the family" political culture of Illinois did produce one interesting vote -- it was that lonely "no" vote. It was cast by newly elected State Representative Deborah Mell.

The name sound familiar?

Yep! She is the daughter of powerhouse Alderman Dick Mell ... AND sister of Mrs. Blagojevich. She is the impeached governor's sister-in-law.

Frankly, I am shocked and disappointed that she voted "no." I wouldn't expect her to ruin future Christmases with her sister by voting "yes," but I think she had a clear obligation to abstain in view of the obvious conflict of interest.

In one of her first acts as a representative of the people, with a sworn duty to uphold the law, not-so-Representative Mell opted to cast a personal vote for the exclusive benefit of her family. With 117 votes against her, it is preposterous to suggest that she voted on the merits of the issue or the public interest.

It appears that the heirs to the various political peerages in Illinois are no more imbued wtih a sense of propriety, principle and reform than are their elders.

IDEA: Obama in mint condition

2009-01-13T23:53:00.000-06:00

If you follow this blog, you know I’m a great fan of Abraham Lincoln. As such, I have written often against the elimination of the Lincoln penny. I know I am a few years ahead of things, but here is my idea.

First, let’s all agree that unless Obama screws up badly, he is destined to be immortalized on some denomination of coin or currency. Right? Well, what about creating the Lincoln-Obama penny – a double profile impression. This is a case where two heads are definitely better than one. This would most certainly end any talk of doing away with the distinctive copper coin. Yea!

It is also a most fitting match up. The Great Emancipator and the first African-American President. The fact that both claim Illinois as their home state is a charming coincidence. On the reverse, I propose we replace the Lincoln Memorial with the iconic, albeit romanticized, abolition image (left) of Lincoln personally bestowing freedom on a slave.

This also solves another problem. If you don’t double up on the penny, who gets knocked off one of the other coins or bills to make room for Obama? Washington? Jefferson? Roosevelt? Or, you could wind up putting Obama on a denomination that gets no significant circulation.

I think Old Abe would be right proud to share his coin with the first President that at least looks like he could have had slave ancestors.

(A special thanks to my colleague, Xiong Neng Her, for the execution of the design.)

REACT: Club Gitmo to close as part of Obama austerity policy

2009-01-13T23:29:00.000-06:00

I see where President-elect Barack Obama promises to close one of the more fashionable Caribbean spas. I am speaking of Club Gitmo, the terrorist vacation facility on the tropical shores of Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay. Where these guests of the United States government will go next is yet unknown, but most likely they will be placed into the hands of some foreign government host – one more in keeping with the hospitality traditions of their homeland.

Like any luxury spa, Club Gitmo is a full service resort, featuring life-style counselors, recreational activities, room service, free medical coverage, gourmet meals (at least compared to what they received back home), religious services, and excellent security. Rooms (right) are designed in the minimalist style that is all the rage these days.

Some complained of the fraternity-like hazing practices, which even at the best campuses always seem to involve some level of nudity, and the more robust health club activities, such as water boarding and sleep(less) therapy. Still, these were pretty tame compared to similar places in other parts of the world.

I am sure once these mass murders are relocated to other facilities in their native lands, they will long for the days of leisure at Club Gitmo. The new accommodations are not likely to be as commodious, nor the service as polite.

It would be interesting to see how they are doing in a year or so, but as so often is the case, one loses contact with such old friends. In all probability, some will never be heard from again.

OBSERVATION: Protect the right to be tortured

2009-01-13T22:42:00.000-06:00

I have been giving more thought to all this talk about torture. I don’t get it. I sort of see torture as something people engage in voluntarily. Maybe those who are tortured are masochists of a sort. They not only choose to be tortured, they have a lot of influence on the methods. You see, all torture is a matter of free choice.

Think about it. Some guy is told that if he does not answer a question correctly, he will have his testicles oiled, wired and braised like fresh water clams. Clearly, he has a choice. The fact that a number of people prefer the latter may not be comprehensible to those of us who have no desire be grilled -- figuratively or literally. But everyone is different. Who am I to impose my values on someone else?

Some people are happy to tell you what they know – can’t wait to brag. Some respond to a simple “please,” or a more emphatic “pretty please.” Others might require a little arm twisting, as they say. But then, there are those who seem to want to explore their personal limits of fear and pain. Why should we deny them there right to do so? We are a free country, after all.

To look at it another way, it is like a quiz show. Remember “Truth or Consequences?” Same deal. If you didn’t tell the “truth,” you got the “consequences.” It was a really popular show.

Maybe if we televised torture, it wouldn’t seem so bad. The hooded hostage holders of al-Qaida televise all kinds of torture and even slitting the throats of infidels on camera -- and that seems to be quite well received with their viewing audience.

I’m thinking we produce a contemporary version: “Truth or Consequences – The Reality Show.” Consistent with our current cultural values, violence and blood could be viewed alongside Saturday morning cartoons, but anything involving nudity would be restricted to late night programming.

Finally, the television would be an important source of education for the children by witnessing the use of such retro devices as the Iron Maiden and the Rack (both pictured on left) – not to mention the debilitating affect of hard rock music played at deafening levels over prolonged periods of time (another Iron Maiden, coincidentally).

Of course, sometimes those tortured die. Everything in life has its risk. If a blood-thirsty maniacal terrorist is determined to stay silent in the face of possible death, again it is his choice. Not much different than assisted suicide, I dare say. This would also be consistent with their cultural and religious suicidal tendencies – usually expressed in crowded places. They seem to get a real bang out of it.

Don’t think I am an unsympathetic person. I know what such decisions are like – and so do a lot of other people. One time a guy pointed a gun at me on a dark street in Washington, D.C. He said, “Give me your money or I’ll kill you.” He was kind enough to give me a choice. I could have said “no” and exposed myself to serious injury or death. I chose to eagerly offer him the contents of my wallet – and I threw in a diamond ring and wrist watch as an incentive not to shoot me anyway. Life certainly can be a matter of making the right choices.

It seems to me that the best example we can show those who would destroy our civilization is our ultimate respect for their right to choose. As a just and honorable society, we must always make sure they know exactly what the consequences are if they choose not to answer the questions correctly. It is also important that once they refuse the less painful option, we must apply the promised consequence with speed and certainty. Honesty is, as they say, the best policy.

I can only assume that the campaign against the option of torture is just the latest example of those control freak liberals wanting to deny people yet another freedom of choice.

LATE BREAKING: Bus runs over White line?

2009-01-07T16:20:00.000-06:00

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (right) is a bitchn' and a moanin'. Seems that U.S. Senate President Harry Reid & Co. now say that the only thing Roland Burris needs to do to be seated in the U.S. Senate is get White's signature on the certification. A mere technicality.

No more talk of barring Burris because of his appointment by Governor Rod Blagojevich. Forget about the letter from half the Senate saying they will not seat the former Illinois Attorney General. No. No. No. Just sweet talk and a small bureaucratic requirement -- a mere technicality.

In response, White is saying that Reid has thrown him under the bus, or down the stairs strapped to a wheel chair, depending on the quote you prefer. This is all "veeeelly interersting," as comic Arte Johnson used to say.

White claims that his signature isn't needed to seat Burris, even though not long ago he said he was stopping the Governor for filling the seat by ... take a guess ... by not signing the document. If White believes that, why did he refuse the sign the certification? Just some silly symbolic posturing?

Regardless of what White's shifting opinion is at the moment, the U.S. Senate thinks his signature is required -- and they sight a Nineteenth Century rule to back up their words.

But White has every reason to be a bit perturbed. He was encourged by Reid to refuse to sign the certification so that Reid could refuse to seat Burris. In fact, Reid called White personally to thank him for his support and courage. White gave Reid the shred of bureaucratic process -- or lack there of -- that gave an appearance of legitimacy to Reid's flagrantly improper scheme to reject the legally appointed Burris.

Proving that in politics no favor goes unpunished, Reid now lays the blame for not seating Burris on White's missing signature, while he plays host to the soon-to-be junior senator from Illinois.

For his part, Reid, who was rolled by Burris like a cheap cigarette, denies that he was out smarted by the Washington neophyte. He just needed a few minutes face time to assure himself that Burris did not have horns and a tail -- and presumably that the former Illinois Attorney General did not talk like those uppity blacks who Reid (excuse the expression) black balled.

White is not alone on the far side of the limb that Reid & Co. are sawing off. Illinois Attorny General Lisa Madigan has offered an opinon that there is nothing in the law that requires White to obey ... the law. Ya gotta love lawyers. Personally, I sort of think that the part of the oath that that says "uphold the law" could be releveant, but then, I'm not a lawyer.

Madigan first tried to get the Supreme Court to declare the Governor incompetent to serve without a shred of medical evidence or legal authority. It was more than a stretch -- but desperate times require desperate measures. Now she supports the Secretary of State not performing his legal duties.

One suspects that she would not undertaket these political suicide missions if the Governor didn't just happen to be her daddy's chief nemisis. As Speaker of the House, he is doing his own version of get-Blago-at-all-costs by establishing a impeachment committee composed of the Governor's most ardent enemies.

At first, the game plan was to get Blago out before he could make a senate appointment. Now the game plan is to get him out before the Burris appointment sets like cement on a sunny day. They hope they can twist, bend and break the rules as a means of stopping Burris.

My bet is Burris wins with or without White's signature.

LATE BREAKING: Burris seat shoved up Reid's

2009-01-07T10:20:00.000-06:00

If there is a shortage of eggs on the grocery shelf, blame Democrat Senate President Harry Reid. It appears he is going around with a LOT of egg on his face.

In a stark repudiation of his threats to block the seating of Roland Burris as the new junior senator from Illinois, the Senate Democrats decided that the law had more authority than their hapless leader.

This also marks a baby step set-back for President-elect Barack Obama, who originally knee-jerked in favor of Reid's scheme. His former colleagues in the Senate politely demurred.

Whew. Finally ... score one for the rule of law -- at least in Washington.

Since the seating is still contingent on the signature of Illlinois Secretary of State Jesse White, the pressure is on him to obey the law and sign the certification, as he is obligated to do. He has no authority to use the technical need for a signature to essentially negate the Governor's exslusive right to name a qualified person -- and we the people should be sure that he does not usurp and assume such authority.

One hopes that the Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, will officially advise White of his involuntary legal duty, but nothing is certain. There are indications that she may try to provide specious legal cover for the Secretary of State in the same way she took a sham case to the Illinois Supreme Court to have the Governor declared incompetent to serve.

OBSERVATION: The stupid politics of evil

2009-01-07T03:19:00.000-06:00

As an Illinois resident, I have bipartisan disgust.

There is a saying that America is governed by two parties – the evil party and the stupid party. This was always a good insider joke for political gatherings. In the Land of Lincoln, the joke has become a reality. Given the number of indictments and convictions of mistitled “public servants,” there is no doubt that the Democrats have the clear advantage in taking the gold medal in the evil contest. It is equally clear that the clueless and inept Republican leadership has secured the gold with world record breaking stupidity.

Now there are exceptions. Republican Governor/felon George Ryan is most certainly a strong contender in any evil event. After all, his corruption killed a bunch of people, including six little kids, while sparing heinous murders their call to justice. How evil is that? While Democrat Governor/soon-to-be-felon Rod Blagojevich and his team are gold medal winners in evil, who can deny Blago an individual gold for stupidity?

Notwithstanding occasional personal exceptions, the Democrats have a lock on evil in Illinois, and the Republicans dominate stupidity. The evil of the Democrats is seen all over the judicial system. Scores of indictments and innumerable media expose over scores of years layout the intimate details of their evil. It covers every branch and level of government. The Dem leadership gives life to such sayings as … power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely … and … money is the root of all evil.

To their credit, evil makes more sense than stupidity … in fact, it trumps stupidity. That is why the Democrats hold all the major power in Illinois – and now nationally -- while the doofus GOP looks like the Keystone Kops in a Mack Sennett comedy.

The elephant party can take comfort in the fact that stupidity rarely gets a person indicted. Of course, it does not get a person elected, either. GOP stupidity cleared the path for Barack Obama to travel from the obscurity of the Illinois State Senate to his historic world hero election to the presidency. The U.S. Senate campaign of millionaire Jack Ryan collapsed due to the bumbled handling of a “sex scandal” that had no sex.

But this was just the precursor of what might be considered the most incredibly stupid political tactic in American history. The Illinois GOP gave the winnable Senate nomination to a black out-of-stater on the theory that a black Republican trumps a black Democrat. Worse yet. The black right-wing, out-of-stater, Alan Keyes, was a perennial lunatic candidate who has unsuccessfully run for a number of public offices, including the presidency, to the great embarrassment of the Republican party and us normal conservatives.

Keyes is a Bible quoting, homo hating gadfly with some of the most outrageous public policy proposals conceived by man. Think of the ramifications of this stupidity. Thanks to the failure of the loco … oooops …. I mean local … GOP to stop Obama when he was merely another ambitious, but undistinguished, Illinois politician, he led the Dems to an unprecedented victory on the national scene.

Of course, the Obama juggernaut could have been stopped at the national level, but the stupid party proved its calling with the nomination of John McCain. He, in turn, ran a stupid race.

Three times Obama came to office against all odds because the GOP handed him the victory through applied stupidity. The danger for the GOP is that Obama may turn out not to be evil and not to be stupid. In which case, the Republicans will be relegated to a long era of stupidity in the kiddie pool of politics.

(Click on pics to read inscriptions.)

OBSERVATION: Obama bombed on Burris

2009-01-07T02:26:00.001-06:00

Belatedly, President-elect Barack Obama has fallen silent on the issue of Roland Burris as his successor in the U.S. Senate. Had he thought things through a bit more clearly in the first instance, he could have left the issue to Governor Rod Blagojevich, Secretary of State Jesse White and Senate President Harry Reid. Or, he could have given the appointment a pass. Instead, he bought into the specious argument that while Burris is a good man and very well qualified, the perceived sins of his sponsor fatally tainted the appointment. Obama ignored both the law and common sense.

This puts the first half African-American President in sync with the legally dubious and arguably racist posture of Reid. Suddenly, Obama is a partisan in a strategy that risks reducing black membership in the World's Most Exclusive Club to zero.

Obama was a follower when he should have been a leader. Had he accepted the appointment as legal and Burris as qualified, there would have been a junior Illinois senator sworn in with the class of '09. He also would have prevented Reid from looking arrogant, stupid and racist.

Now, the drama will continue on the edge of the national spotlight, casting a discernible shadow across the historic inauguration festivities. Oh, the irony of it all.

RECOMMENDATION: The GOP should let Blago remain in office

2009-01-06T11:18:00.000-06:00

Most likely, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich will be impeached before all the evidence is considered and testimony taken. The Illinois House, under the leadership of Speaker Michael (I gotta make my daughter governor) Madigan is a hanging jury. Like any kangaroo court, the verdict was predetermined before the articles of impeachment were even drawn up. The impeachment panel is a means to an end, not a deliberative body.

This means that it will be up to the Illinois Senate to hold a mock trial – at which there will be no rules of evidence – and vote conviction or acquittal. This requires a two-third vote of the membership – and that means a few Republican votes will be required to remove the Governor from office.

The fact that it appears that the GOP senators will follow the lead of the Democrat majority is testimony to their lack of appreciation for the democratic process, their disregard for any presumption of innocence, their non-existent party discipline and their abysmal lack of political savvy.

If the Republican leaders had half the testicular virility of the Governor and the political chutzpah of the Democrats in general, they would either abstain or vote against the conviction of the Governor.

On the merits, Governor Blagojevich was duly elected by the people of Illinois. He has been indicted but not convicted of any crime. The legislature would have to both disregard the vote of the people and the highly vaunted presumption of innocence to remove him from office.

What if the Governor is ultimately deemed innocent of all charges? Will he be unimpeached and returned to office? Would his removal by political adversaries be deemed a coup rather than an impeachment? Could he sue for damages?

Since he is indicted, and a judicial process will now move forward, I would rely on a jury of his peers to resolve the question of criminal conduct, and not subject the issue to unconsidered evidence, amateur judgment and political opinion.

I would also remind the public that the leaders of the lynch mob** are the very same people who endorsed his re-election. In fact, the leader of the impeachment effort was his campaign co-chairman.

The Republicans should have no part in this political chicanery.

Okay. Then there is the “other” reason to vote against conviction. It leaves the Governor and the Democrats – friend and foe alike – to hang out to dry for the next two years, or at least until U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald actually convicts the Governor of at least one felony.

The opposition party could be on the verge of total implosion, and the Republicans seem to be on the verge of bailing them out – a move befitting the often designated stupid party.

Now, I know some say it would be irresponsible not to remove Blago so that peace and tranquility can be restored to the governmental process in Illinois. This just means business as usual.

If the Illinois Senate fails to convict the Governor, and the lynch mob sees that their prey has eluded the noose, things will calm down. The critical business of the state will move forward out of necessity. However, the process is likely to be more controversial, more transparent, more open to public sentiment, more bipartisan and more democratic. The idea that democracy is best served by public serenity is bogus. Heated public debated is more beneficial than quiet back room deals.

When I was growing up in Chicago, we used to say that there was no disservice to the public when Mafia members killed each other. Likewise, there is no disservice to good government to have the pre-eminent Democrat party break down into tribal warfare.

Yeah! I think Blago is probably guilty – “probably,” I say. And yeah! I am not a fan of his politics and philosophy. And yeah! I think he is not sharpest knife in the drawer. But I think justice and politics are better served by letting him continue to fill the office to which he was elected by the people (at the recommendation of all those now trying to remove him) until such time as a jury of his peers finds him guilty of the crimes for which he is only accused.

I have to confess … I have a third reason to keep Blago in office. Good theater. This is a political demolition derby. It is awesome. It is spectacular. For the first time in ages, I can’t wait for the next news update. Political conversations and the proverbial grapevine are a twitter with news, speculation, opinions and predictions. I mean … what is more fun than watching arrogant people run around like fools.

Think about this. If they had booted Blago out of office in December, he never could have appointed Roland Burris to the vacant Senate seat. In doing so, the Governor has at once sent a good man to Washington and exposed the hypocrisy and racism of such national Democrats as Senate President Harry Reid. Now Rules Committee Chair Diane Feinstein, who will handle any Senate inquiry into l'affaire Burris, is saying to seat Burris. This gets more delicious by the minute.

For once, I hope the Republicans can be as shrewd and crafty as the Democrats. Hmmmmm. Probably not. Oh well! It was fun while it lasted.

** Yes. I referred to the Democrat leaders as a “lynch mob.” Whether Blagojevich is guilty as hell, or not, is irrelevant to the conduct of his political adversaries. Lynch mobs did not always hang innocent people, but they always circumvented the all important process of justice.

OBSERVATION: Reid the racist.

2009-01-05T23:04:00.000-06:00

Staff and supporters are trying to rescue Senate President Harry Reid from his racist gaffe --- pressuring Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to appoint a white person to the Senate over the more logical choices of such African-Americans as Congressmen Danny Davis or Jesse Jackons, or former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, and now Roland Burris. As the spin goes, old Harry is only interested in getting a candidate who is electable in two years. It is not about race, they say. Given who is about to move into the White House, I guess I would sing the same tune, too, if I were in Reid's choir.

The spin is all balderdash, however. Reid's stark contrast between black and white is too distinct and uncompromised to be a matter of "electability." They say Reid would be happy to support a qualified black candidate, just that there is no such thing -- at least in Illinois. Reid does not think blacks are generally electable ... period.

How can Reid think that no black candidate is electable from a state that has twice elected black senators, a black secretary of state, a black mayor of Chicago and, in Roland Burris himself, both comptroller and attorney general? In each instance, the racist political subculture claimed the candidate was unelectable for only one reason ... color of skin. Reid is proffering the same opinion for the same reasons.

REACT: Kick Reid out of the Senate.

2009-01-05T17:07:00.000-06:00

I could not believe my eyes as I read the latest audacious comment from the power-crazed, arrogant and slightly nutty Democrat leader of the U.S. Senate, the not-so-honorable Harry Reid.

In referring to the chaos he generated by summarily rejecting the duly and legally appointed replacement for President-elect Barack Obama, Reid opened the door to seating appointee Roland Burris by saying ... here goes ... saying "there's always room to negotiate".

WHAT???

That's right! The one time trial lawyer (<-- Maybe this explains a few things.) said he is willing to "negotiate" the seating of Burris. So ... the sanctimonious hypocrite refused to obey the law so he could "negotiate" something for himself. Isn't that what caused the whole problem in the first place?

What are Reid's terms? That Burris surrender his legal right to run for re-election -- denying the people of Illinois the ultimate decision? Does Burris have to agree to some sort of personal loyalty to Reid on key issues? Does he have to help raise money for the Democrat's campaign committee? Just what is there to negotiate?

First there is the refusal to seat the new Illinois senator. Then Reid is found rejecting all the other likely black candidates in a behind-the-scenes chat with none other than the toxic Governor Rod Blagojevich. Now he wants to "negotiate" a deal if Burris has any chance of winning his approval.

Perhaps it is Reid who should be booted from the Senate.

OP ED: Obama is getting it right ... and the left is feeling left out

2009-01-05T02:32:00.001-06:00

President-elect Barack Obama is off to a pretty good start. I know this – if for no other reason – because the so-called progressive (<-- read that archliberal) radio gabbers are apoplectic. Just as the far right feared, the far left believed that Obama was a radical leftist who would initiate some sort of “age of socialism” by personal edict – a communist Camelot, if you will. The left wingers chose to forget that Obama (with Mayor Daley, left) was the product of old time corrupt Chicago politics. In doing so, they overlooked the fact that politically, the Democrat machine of his political upbringing is a bit right of center. Also, Obama and his people (the Chicago crowd) know that his legacy depends on being a centrist President. If he wants to be remembered for more than the first half black guy to work out of the Oval Office, he has to have accomplishments. Starting class warfare is not going to do the trick.

So, what has happened since Election Day that keeps my conservative anxiety in check?

First, his appointments have been pretty good … considering. Most of the Cabinet picks are moderates who have been hanging around Washington bars since the Clinton administration, waiting for the next meal ticket. Obama has won praise from such groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and televangelist Pat Robertson (right). Who would have thought?

His team of economic advisors, who will be the vanguard in setting down the economic recovery plan, are mostly free market guys. None have a history of supporting systemic socialism. America’s leading capitalist, Steve Forbes (left), gives the team pretty high marks. That’s good enough for me.

Obama has already let it be known that he will most likely not reverse the Bush temporary tax cuts as the progressives believed he would. They assumed that this was a slam dunk on day one. Instead, Obama has decided to allow those tax cuts to run their course. The left is clinging to a hope that when the cuts run out in 2010, Obama will let them die. I say … don’t be so sure.

The difference between his view and Bush’s view of the various corporate bailout schemes is negligible – though in this case, I think they are both wrong. Nonetheless, Obama is in the political mainstream of the moment on this.

Though he opposed getting into the Iraq war, Obama has proven himself to be quite malleable on the strategies to end it. He is not a cut and run appeasement guy. There is a general consensus that a phased pull out will occur. Bush, Obama and the Iraq government seem to be in general agreement on the timing.

On the other hand, Obama favors a kick-ass build up in Afghanistan. The fact that he is keeping both General David Patraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in place seems to suggest that there will be no dramatic change in the conduct of the war on terrorism. Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is a very high priority for the President-elect.

When not focusing on the economy and the war, Obama took time to assure the gun owners of America that he is “no enemy of the Second Amendment.” He stated his belief in the right of gun ownership with responsible regulation – a view closer to the National Rifle Association than the Brady Bunch (<-- referring to the Jim Brady, who was wounded alongside President Reagan and whose wife is our nation’s number one gun grabber). I recall hearing the squeals of disbelief and disappointment on (hot) Air America when Obama joined John McCain for a polite debate hosted by conservative Pastor Rick Warren (seen being embraced by Obama -- literally and figuratively), of the Saddleback mega church. Now … Obama has passed over all those other reverends in his past life, Wright, Jackson, Sharpton and Pfleger, to have Reverend Warren provide the historic invocation.

Because of Warren’s opposition to gay marriage, the gay rights leaders are all a twitter over his selection. They feel betrayed. Hellooooooo. While mostly avoiding the issue -- but when pressed -- Obama was squarely in the ranks of those opposing gay marriage. He is not likely to jump on board the stupid anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, but he will not be out there pushing for gay weddings. Mostly he leaves that up to the several states – a good position constitutionally and politically.

Now, I am sure that Obama is going to give me a lot of reasons to toss a shoe or two in his direction over the course of the next four or eight years, but so far I am not even untying them.

OBSERVATION: Irony within tragedy.

2009-01-04T17:42:00.000-06:00

It was reported that Danny Platt (right), of New Orleans, killed his two year old son because he didn't want to pay court ordered child support. I mean, you can't just go around killing your kid because he is an economic inconvience, right? Unless, of course, you call it an abortion. Maybe Platt just saw this as sort of a late term abortion -- just a little later than most. The point is ... once you start devaluing life as a sacred and social treasure to be perserved at almost all costs, you can get a lot of ugly unintended consequences. Killing kids is just not right -- after or before they leave what should be the protective womb of the mother.

REACT: Reid is okay with all white senate.

2009-01-04T17:29:00.000-06:00

“How dare he.” That was what I said in a previous blog about the Democrat’s Senate President Harry Reid. My scold was because of his arrogant refusal to seat ANY U.S. senator from Illinois because the appointing governor, Rod Blagojevich, is allegedly a crook. Upon the appointment of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, a worthy choice, Reid promised to use the Capitol Hill police to bar the appointee.

Weeeeell. Now it is a double “how dare he.” Seems that Reid actually phoned up the alleged crooked Governor to offer his recommendations for the seat. While he found Tammy Duckworth (the wounded war hero, who lost a congressional election to Rep. Peter Roskum) and Attorney General Lisa Madigan both “acceptable,” he begged Blago not to appoint Congressmen Danny Davis or Jesse Jackson, nor former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones.

Interestingly, both acceptable candidates are white, and all the unacceptable candidates, including the appointee, are black. Apparently Reid misplaced his invitation to the post racial party hosted by Barack Obama.

If Reid was a Republican, I can only image the national media fury he would have caused for thumbing his nose (Well, I guess he is not exactly thumbing his nose in the photo, eh?) at all those African-American candidates.

OBSERVATION: Sitting in judgment in the Senate.

2009-01-03T15:10:00.000-06:00

Ok, so the Governor has suffered scandals that clearly bring into question his honesty and integrity – although not convicted of anything, as of yet. The person he would designate to fill the vacant seat in the United States Senate is a scandal-free well known political figure – albeit some say not qualified to hold the office. In such a situation, should the appointee be denied the seat because the person with the appointive power is tainted? Leaders in the Senate seem to think so.

Should the senators simply choose to ignore the law and block the doors of the chamber to prevent the newly appointed senator from entering? I say no.

If it is the legal right of New York Governor David Paterson to make the appointment, then I think Caroline Kennedy has every legal right to serve – regardless of my personal opinion of the appointee. Its a no brainer.

AND ... THEREFORE ... ERGO ... THUS ...

The same is true for Roland Burris – who, on his worst day, has more integrity than quite a number of sitting senators who are addressed as “the honorable” and commonly characterized as serving “with distinction.”

REACT: White's blocking of a black is not a black and white issue.

2009-01-02T21:12:00.000-06:00

Jesse White (below left) has been a pretty good Illinois Secretary of State, by most measure, but in the matter of the appointment of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris as the replacement for President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate, the guy made a bad call – a very bad call.

Basically, it is the job of the Secretary of State to file the paperwork when the Governor exercises his exclusive constitutional authority to make an appointment, as in the case of Obama’s replacement.

For reasons that can only be described as personal or political, White announced that he would refuse to sign off on the paperwork in order to block the appointment. Nowhere in the Illinois Constitution is there a provision granting the Secretary of State a check on gubernatorial appointments – and well there should not be.

In refusing to file the paperwork, White is violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and usurping the authority of not only this flawed governor, but potentially all future governors. It is a dangerous precedent.

In the interest of the public and the republic, let’s hope that the Illinois Supreme Court will swiftly order White to do his administrative job and file the paperwork.

This has nothing to do with the allegations against the Governor, or his dismal level of popularity. It has everything to do with the rules that must stand firm against arbitrary disobedience. It is often said, we are a nation governed by laws and not by the whim of men. Which is it to be?

OBSERVATION: Kwanzaa is over ... I mean OVER

2009-01-02T21:03:00.000-06:00

As soon-to-be-President Barack Obama leads us into the recently dubbed post-racial era, I am pleased to report that it appears that one of the results of this new age of enlightenment is the slipping way of the Kwanzaa pseudo holiday.

That’s right folks. What I noticed this holiday season was something that I didn’t notice. The once ubiquitous Kwanzaa greetings and events seem to have faded from media attention – the first sign that the recently concocted holiday has lost its allure with the politically correct. We can only hope.

The President dropped any acknowledgement of the so-called holiday for the first time in recent years. I hope that Obama will follow this example, but I fear he could bring Kwanzaa back to the White House as an ethnic sop for the segregationists in the African-American community.

While I am sure that I missed a reference or two, I am not aware of any newscaster offering Kwanzaa greetings alongside the Christmas/Hanukkah tributes.

This is a good thing.

Kwanzaa was invented in the mid 1960s by black militant (and part time FBI informer) named Ron Karenga, which he Africanized and intellectualized to Dr. Maulana Karenga. He founded a group called United Slaves, which maybe the first time “slaves” were united since winning the freedom to be un-united by Abraham Lincoln.

The holiday was designed to provide the black community with a celebration to compete with Christmas, notwithstanding that most black folks are Christians.

The sole purpose of Kwanzaa was to coalesce the black community in opposition to the white community. Its unstated function was to resist assimilation. It is nothing less than a celebration of strident racism camouflaged as faux religious celebration.

This is not like the Martin Luther King holiday, which recognizes and honors the good work a person in the struggle for equality and justice. Quite the opposite. Kwanzaa is an artificial holiday that perpetuates de facto segregation.

It is particular offensive because it makes no pretense of any historic validation. It has no more relevancy to historic events or traditions than Walt Disney’s “All Dogs go to Heaven” is a theological documentary. The neo traditions, symbols, rituals, costumes and music of Kwanzaa are just random scraps of African lore stitched together in a patchwork of meaningless ritual.

I say … let’s forget Kwanzaa and save the next Afro-centric American holiday for Barack Obama’s birthday. I can see that one coming … and at least it is something we can all celebrate together.

OP ED: Blago trumps critics with Burris appointment

2008-12-31T13:27:00.000-06:00

I am no fan of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (left in target). In making the appointment for the Obama senate seat, however, Blago has proven that his adversaries have a tiger by the tail.

In a demonstration of testicular virility, the Guv has shown his unabated authority to appoint a new senator. In doing so, he selected an African-American with a distinguished public service record unsullied by scandal -- a person of impeccable credentials -- Roland Burris (right)

(You may recall that in my December 15th blog, I suggested that Blago go ahead and appoint a senator -- a person of impeccable reputation --as he is legally authorized to do. I proposed former school board honcho, George Munoz, but Blago was in the same spirit with the Burris appointment.)

Given the failure of the Illinois legislature to pass a special election bill, Blago had every right – maybe duty -- to exercise his authority. Like it or not, he IS the governor. More importantly, he made a good choice.

Allowing the Governor to make the selection means we play by the rules. Though I am sure I would like a more conservative senator, I do not believe in gerry-rigging the rules for contemporary political convenience or advantage. The appointment of Burris is no effrontery to the electorate since they already rejected my opinion and gave the Senate seat to a black liberal Democrat.

In making his move, the Governor has befuddled his critics, however.

He gave the Republicans yet another opportunity to continue there largely irrelevant role as the “nattering nabobs of negativism” as they attempt to smear the reputations of Lt. Governor Patrick Quinn and now Roland Burris. The GOP wants to change the rules in favor of an expensive election only for the slim opportunity that they could somehow overcome their institutional ineptitude and actually win a statewide contest.

The appointment appears to have put Governor-in-Waiting Quinn over the edge. His near hysterical press conference made him look more like a deranged political assassin than the calm and responsible heir apparent. His constant reference to “what the people want” was both gratuitous and unsubstantiated. We govern by rules, not personal opinion.

Furthermore, Quinn’s unqualified assertion that the Governor will be impeached and convicted by mid-February smacks of arrogance and does further disservice to the legislature’s impeachment hearings by undermining any impression of fairness.

So crazed is the Democrat leadership that the otherwise level-headed Secretary of State Jesse White is opting to violate his oath of office, requiring that he uphold the law, by politically refusing to advance the necessary paperwork for the appointment.

The Illinois legislature, having botched a timely bill for a special election and now making the impeachment process look like a kangaroo court, is looking impotent in the face of the Governor’s persistence in acting like he IS the Governor.

Then there is U.S. Senate President Harry Reid, refusing to seat any person appointed by Blago. How dare he! Who is he to say that the people of Illinois are not entitled to representation? Burris should be judged on HIS character and qualifications, not on the ethical lapses of the Governor.

And is Reid prepared to give away the only African-American seat in the entire United States Senate? Where does Obama come down on that one?

All of the aforementioned characters are being stampeded by a major media that is encourage this lynch mob mentality. The once condemned "guilt by association" is now the centerpiece of their campaign against Burris.

Collectively, Blagojevich’s critics have done something virtually impossible. They have set off a wave of public sympathy for the Governor. The Governor has exercised his legal right. Roland Burris is an exemplary choice. We claim that the “rule of law” is pre-eminent. Let’s prove it and send Burris to Washington.

SUGGESTION: Appoint the senator aleady.

2008-12-15T20:54:00.000-06:00

For the most part, I tend to support Republican positions on most issues – but by far not all the time. The selection of Senator Replacement to fill the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama is one of those exceptions.

Oh! I know why the GOP wants a costly election. They have a good chance of winning the seat. That is exactly why the Dems are now against an election. They could lose it. The cost of the election has nothing … nada … to do with the Democrat’s desire to keep it as an appointment.

Now … as a taxpayer, I DO care about the cost of an election. All things being equal, I suppose I would be happy to cough up my money to give the people a choice. However, there are two other things that put me on the side of an appointment.

First, it is the long standing rule that the governor appoints. As much as I personally would like to see a more conservative senator take the seat, I hate when the politicians change the rules to game the system. If it were not for Governor Rod Blagojevich being escorted from his home in handcuffs, there would be no question as to the proper procedure – a gubernatorial appointment.

Now, I know my stand on principle will not get me that conservative senator I desire, but there is another consideration. The voters of Illinois – contrary to my advice – did elect a Democrat, and a liberal one at that. It is not a disservice to the electorate to have the Democrat governor name Democrat colleague – and one who might even do him so political good. (This does not mean I endorse auctioning off the seat for hard cold cash. No. No. No.)

I really do not care if the appointment is made by Governor Slammerbound or Governor-In-Waiting Patrick Quinn, if he should step into Blago’s teeny shoes. In either case, let the merits of the person appointed stand on their own.

And that brings me to one of the Democrats leading loose cannons, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He has announced that no senator appointed by Blago will be seated. To underscore his determination, Reid had 49 of his Democrat colleagues repeat this in an open letter.

How dare Reid! Who in the hell does he think he is to say that the people of Illinois are not entitled to representation unless he personally approves. Anyone appointed to that seat should be judged on HIS or HER character and qualifications, not on the ethical lapses of the Governor.

Frankly, if I were Blagojevich, I would forget about all those conniving to get the appointment and appoint an outstanding individual. Just as an example, what if he appointed former School Board President George Munoz (left) – or a person of that caliber?** Would any one dare to say it is a bad appointment? I think not. Would Reid & Co. dare to reject such a distinguished and qualified candidate? On what basis?

Hmmmm. Now that I said it out loud, the Munoz appointment would be outstanding -- and may serve the Governor well in the long run. Naming a Hispanic has not only political pluses, but if he wants to get some friends on an eventual jury, this could do the trick. There will undoubtedly be some Hispanics on the jury. Of course, Governor/jail bird George Ryan tried to influence the jury pool by emptying death row of the mostly black inmates – but it didn’t work. Sure the connection between appointing a Hispanic senator and locking in an acquittal vote in some eventual jury is a very long shot, but given Blago’s situation, long shots are all he has.

At any rate … I think the Governor should shove it down that arrogant Reid’s throat and make the senate appointment ASAP. And if he gets tossed out before he can, then Governor Quinn should make the appointment as his first official act. I am sure both Blago and Quinn have a pretty good idea who they will name by now.

** For those who do not know him … not only was Munoz an outstanding school board president, but he went on to be Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of the Treasury and then President and Chief Executive Officer of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. He holds advance degrees in law, public policy and economics.

REACT: Obama's seat up for grabs.

2008-12-15T20:06:00.000-06:00

There is no doubt that the stunning arrest and indictment of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has the Democrats reeling. For a moment, they almost forget who they are.

You will recall that in the moments following U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s press conference, donkey party leaders from Chicago, Springfield and the nation’s capital starting calling for a special election to avoid having the ethically compromised governor appoint the successor to the now sacrosanct Barack Obama seat in the U.S. Senate.

Weeeell … it was not long before they recovered enough to realize the shock of their own action. The leaders of the power-at-all-cost party actually proposed that the citizens of the Land of Lincoln be given a choice. This led them to further realize that the power players would lose the chance to hand pick the next senator. No guarantee the people would pick a black person. No guarantee it would be a political insider. No political benefits (and certianly no cash) for the person or persons making the appointment. Oh my God! No guarantee that the next senator would even be … A DEMOCRAT!

Well, as the aftershocks of “stupid governor-gate” diminished, and more traditional thinking was restored, the same Democrat leaders did a quick one-eighty and decided that the new senator should be appointed by the Blagojevich successor – Lt. Governor Patrick Quinn.

Since Quinn’s rise to the governorship is in the hands of the Madigan family – Michael the Impeacher (right, hugging Blago) or Lisa the Litigator (left) – it is reasonable to guess that the price of promotion may be letting the Madigans pick the senator. Maybe cash is no long the quid for the political pro quo in Illinois, but that does not mean that old fashion horse trading is dead.

The Dem new spin is that an election will be costly. True enough, but democracy in Illinois does not come cheap -- whether above board or under the table. And since when has the expense of ANYTHING bothered this tax-and-steal crowd? After all, they are the biggest OPM** abusers of all time – funding their habit out of the public treasury.

I guess there is some perverse comfort in knowing that our elected leaders have returned to some semblance of normalcy. You know … if it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey, it is still a Democrat.

** Other People’s Money

OBSERVATION: Global warming cooling off??

2008-12-11T21:25:00.000-06:00

Amid all the election news coverage and the unending sagas of political scandals, there has been an unreported story. Seems like the theory of man-made, carbon-caused global warming has been put on the terminally ill list. That’s right. Even as activists and politicians posing as scientists (did the name Al Gore come to mind?) are continuing their increasingly incredible scare tactics, it appears Mother Nature is not being very cooperative. Global thermometers have not risen since 1998. In fact, they have taken a dive in recent years. The earth seems to be cooling down. All over the world cold records are being broken.

Ignoring fact and science, global warming has continued to be a politically popular issue with know-it-all environmentalists and pandering politicians. But now with the worldwide economies cooling down, there is some rethinking goinh on about the climate issue. Most of the nations suffering from the pandemic recession are suddenly of the opinion that reducing man-made carbon emissions will exacerbate the economic crisis. Soooo … for the world leaders, money is now the number one green issue.

The problem is that the scary theories of contemporary scientists sound really well-informed and well-grounded – that is, until they go flatter than the pre-Eratosthenes earth.**

The developing nations, especially China, want the developed nations to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars annually to underwrite their carbon cutting programs. Fat chance of that happening. The industrial nations are back to burning coal and investing in traditional power generation.

To justify all this change of heart, there is now a growing chorus of scientists warning of global cooling – a mini ice age. The are getting the politicians ears these days. We had a similar cooling earth panic in the 1970s. This means that I already have lived through one mini-ice age, global warming and maybe soon another mini ice age. And you wonder why I am cynical when the Chicken Little’s in white lab coats start publishing papers promoting their pet apocalyptic prophesies.

What can you do as an individual to address climate change? Buy a parka.

** I thought you might be wondering. Eratosthenes was a Greek mathematician who proved that the earth was round a couple hundred years before the birth of Christ. For the next two millennia – give or take a couple hundred years -- this fact was kept secret from the peasants of Europe by a powerful cabal of politicians, scientists and church leaders. Sound familiar?

OBSERVATION: Finally an issue worthy of getting behind

2008-12-11T20:20:00.000-06:00

When you mix voodoo science with political correctness, you get some really funny stuff. Well … it would be really funny if it did not cost us taxpayer so much money to underwrite the foolishness. I often refer to the extreme environmentalists as being a bit … you know … anal. Little did I know how apt a description that might be.

Case in point.

Seems like our bureaucrats over at the Environmental Protection Agency are prepared to protect us from yet another imagined assault on our air quality. They are attempting to declare the farting of farm animals to be air pollution. (<-- If you want to read that again to see if it said what you think it said, be my guest).

To control the problem, they propose that farmers pay a fee for each cow, for example. (There is always money behind these crazy ideas, isn’t there?) The average dairy farmer could get hit with a $30,000 to $40,000 annual cost – which you would pay as an increase to the price of milk and cheese.

Can you believe that our bureaucrats have actually devised a scheme to tax farts? Can a levee on poop be far behind (no pun intended)?

One wonders where this slippery slope will find its nadir. Sure … the government can impose a “passing gas tax” on farm animals, but what about pets and free-range animals. Will they be allowed to indiscriminately foul our air? Maybe a ten buck tax on every four-legged pet. Five bucks on parakeets if we can prove they fart. As far as free-range animals, I am not sure what can be done. They pay no taxes and have no owners to foot the bill for them. Planned extinction seems to be the only remedy. After all, if they can't be taxed, what good are they?

Then there is the whole human issue. Because of certain legumes and the unique consumption of beer, man is among the more prodigious of the earth’s farters. I suppose we can’t make it outright illegal to fart, but maybe we can allow farting only in designated areas where the noxious expellant can be captured and properly disposed of. In other words, no farting out of doors or in the public commons.

If this seems a bit extreme, keep in mind that we currently do not allow people to go pooping anywhere they please like a bunch of Neanderthals. We have a designated area where "the noxious expellant can be captured and properly disposed of" -- the euphamistically designated "bathroom."

If you are a smoker/farter in this brave new world, I am not sure where you can go. Since farts are technically flammable, one should not fart in the presence of people with lighted matches anyway. I am sure the good people at the EPA will promulgate some regulations on that danger.

To pay for all this, we will need to have a head – or, better said -- a butt tax on every person. Individual public farting could be addressed with civil citations like traffic tickets. Police would be equipped with sniffing machines to nab the sneaky silent farters.

Thinking of the laws that require dog owners to clean up after their pets, can the civic-minded folks take individual responsibility by inhaling their own farts? Hmmm. Bad idea. But … maybe some genius will come up with a personal collection devise – on the principle of the pet poop pick-up products.

There is always the opportunity to reduce the consumption of fart producing foods by aggressive taxation. This would put the price of pinto beans beyond Rusian caviar.

In all likelihood, some of our left-wing city councils will follow the tradition they established for cigarettes and atomic bombs by declaring their communities to be fart-free zones without the foggiest idea of how to implement such a restriction.

On the global level, we might see the creation of fart credits. Nations with high fart producing diets would have to purchase fart credits from starving nations. While this might be a hardship on the Hispanic world and parts of Asia – not to mention the American fast-food industry -- it would help the undeveloped and under nourished nations of central Africa get more money for their leaders to embezzle.

This could be the next major scientific panic-the-public project – “global browning,” if you will.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I am sure resting easier knowing there are people in Washington protecting my a__ … uh ... protecting me FROM my ass. And, I applaud these dedicated environmentalists who have made their personal contribution to finding a solution to the threat of anal asphyxiation by inserting their heads up theirs.

OBSERVATION: Smiling all the way to the White House

2008-11-11T09:09:00.000-06:00

As a long time political consultant and advisor (no, I was not the guy how suggested that Lincoln take an evening off and go to the theater), I have come to the conclusion that one of the most important factors in a successful candidacy is rarely analyzed in the post-election punditry. Sure, we get all kinds of thoughtful opinions on issues and strategies, but not much on one of the biggest factors -- likeability. Yeah. Likeability. Frankly, I think it is more important than issues and strategies -- although they play a role.

We often use the word "like" when we mean prefer. I preferred John McCain, but Icannot say I liked him. In fact, I did not like him very much at all from the first time I met him privately in person.

Does anyone doubt that Barack Obama was more likeable than the strident and intense Hillary Clinton or the grumpy and testy McCain. You can disagree with Obama on issues, and even wonder about his dubious past associations, but it is damn near impossible not to like him. It also extends to his family. They look like a magazine advertisement for Better Homes and Gardens.

One of the reasons Obama could score high on the likeability scale is that he is a non-scary black guy. This is the reason those other black presidential candidates -- Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shirley Chisholm -- did not fare so well. Can you imagine ... President Jesse Jackson? It would be a cross between Halloween and April Fool's Day.

Then there is that smile. Obama has the best presidential smile since Dwight Eisenhower – who was so likeable that his campaign slogan was simply "I like Ike." Ike was the first president to make the smile a political asset. Most of his predecessors posed for portraits or photographs with haughty seriousness. I mean ... have you ever seen a smile on Thomas Jefferson or a clear look at George Washington's fabled wooden teeth? I recall a photo of Abraham Lincoln with a slight grin, and Franklin Roosevelt sometimes held his fancy cigarette holder clenched between his upturned lips, but grins don't count. You have to show teeth.

If you project the likeability factor across the political spectrum, you can see why the GOP took a drubbing. Can you name the Republicans who are just plain likeable? Oh sure, Ronald Reagan, but he's dead. (But can you ever forget that smile?) Issues/shmissues. If the GOP hopes to do better next time, they need to find likeable candidates with big ear-to-ear smiles.

OPINION: Conservatism never made it past the primaries.

2008-11-09T12:20:00.000-06:00

In the musical 1776, there is a scene in which John Adams, frustrated by seeming lack of support for his independence proposals, enters the empty assembly chamber and sings his lament with these opening lines.

Is anybody there?
Does anybody care?
Does anybody see what I see?

He then continues to sing of his vision of a free America.

Those of you who believe in the basic conservative values, and who have looked to the Republican Party to represent your cause, must share the feelings of John Adams at this moment. I sure do.

The GOP leadership abandoned our values for a cheap imitation of the Democrat big government agenda. Instead if offering an alternative to the historically oppressive and failed policies of statism, the party of Lincoln and Reagan has offered up an inferior brand. Lyndon Johnson's butter and guns policy that ravaged our economy for a score of years was revisited with avengence in the Bush adminsitration -- running the national debt through the stratosphere. The appitite of Republican legislators for earmarked pork was on par with any liberal Democrat. Under the weight of reckless greed, the economy tanked. The conservative standard bearers all fell in the primaries -- essentially removing the conservative agenda from the general election. Yes! McCain was too much like a Bush third term.

In this campaign season, the Democrats offered the people a better life, and the hope of a rescue from the ravages of an economy mismanaged by the Republicans’ abandonment of conservative monetary and fiscal policies. The fact that the Democrats were only offering a stronger dose of the same toxic snake oil did not matter. I looked like change … and gave hope. They offered something. The Republicans offered nothing.

In times of fear, it is not uncommon for people to surrender freedom for a sense of security, false as it maybe. We have seen this in times of war -- Lincoln suspends habeas corpus, Roosevelt inters innocent Japanese-Americans and Bush signs the falsely named Patriot Act. This is equally true in times of economic fear. Against every warning and admonition of the Founding Fathers, we entrust government to take care of us.

With the Democrats in full control of our national government, we can expect to see the creeping plague of socialism spreading further in the body politic. Even before the election, and with the compliance of thoughtless Republican leadership, we have seen the banks partially nationalized. Almost a trillion taxpayer dollars appropriated to take control of the national economic tiller from the steady hand of the free market – ergo the people – in favor of the oppressive hand of a government cabal.

In this election, the Democrats claimed the credit for rescuing the people from a burning house, never to reveal that they were the arsonists who set the blaze originally. The witless Republicans willingly provided some of the fuel in a moment of irrationality.

In listening to the excuses and rationalizations of so many GOP leaders, one has to conclude that nothing has been learned. Some see resurrection through the same failed policies of the past. Many call on the party to be even more like the Democrats, and further abandon the conservative principles. For their own self interest, they arrogantly point the finger of blame at those of us who prefer an alternative to the Democrats’ liberal tax, spend and control policies – not the poor quality imitation.

Conservatism did not fail in this election because it was never on the ballot. What failed was mock liberalism offered up by a second rate party with a philosophically corrupted leadership. The old guard has become the very old guard.

Conservatives lack an effective political vehicle to offer the alternative to liberal Democrat “big brother” government. We must either take over the Republican Party or find a new platform … a new party. One of the other – but not the divisiveness of trying to do both.

I think the party of Lincoln and Reagan is the best means for many reasons, but we cannot allow the America of John Adams to be lost by the additional incompetence of even conservative leaders and believers. If we blame the Republican leaders for discarding our conservative values and policies, and surrending the election to the Democrats, then we must look at the failure of the conservative leaders within the party to keep the GOP agenda on the right rightward course.

Newt Gingrich mobilized a nation behind a positive conservative platform in his "Contract with America." Ronald Reagan was super salesman of conservaitve ideology. Where are those kind of leaders now? Perhaps it is good that the current GOP establishment has been decimated by the Democrat sweep. There now is a vacuum. It will be filled by either the clones of the vanquished Republican establishment, or the political descendents of John Adams and Ronald Reagan. The future of America rests in the balance.

I wonder … does any one see what I see?

OBSERVATION: Looking forward to the Chicago Olympics

2008-11-08T23:34:00.000-06:00

Not considering the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, I felt pretty safe in predicting early on that Chicago will not get awarded the 2016 Olympics. My! My! How things can change.

If President Obama puts in a major effort, as he said he would and I have no doubt he will, then the odds change dramatically. When this decision is made next year, Obama will be at the peak of popularity as an international leader and personality. Other heads-of-state, who would have no reason to support the American bid under war-monger Bush or his look-alike successor, can be persuaded to gain points with the new leader of the free world by supporting the Olympic bid through their representative on the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

With ties to Africa, Asia and the Middle East, Obama is arguably the most international President we have since our English-bred founders. Most certainly, a number of national representatives on the liberal leaning IOC will find it appealing to indirectly endorse the election of America’s first African-American (with an Arabic name, no less) to hold the Oval Office. The OIC will like the image of President Barack Obama cutting the ribbon at the opening ceremonies.

Obama helps the Chicago bid in other ways. Chicago’s shortcomings in infrastructure will be quickly corrected by an infusion of federal dollars. If Obama removes U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the rising tide of indictments would likely crest before reaching the fifth floor of City Hall. Political leadership in Chicago will again be “stable.”

While any President may want the Olympics, Obama has the strongest motivation to put this higher up on his priority list. No only will he be lobbying on behalf of his country, but for the benefit of his home town – and the political machine that got him where he is today.

Another Obama advantage is taming the civic wolves. A lot of civic organizations, largely minority groups led by local community organizers, have already fired warnings across the bow of the local Olympic support committee. Civil unrest is never attractive to the IOC. Once their beloved Obama endorses the plan, these voices of opposition will fall silent.

From no chance, Obama, in my view, has transformed Chicago into the city to beat for the Olympics.

OBSERVATION: How to spell Obama? D-A-V-I-D- A-X-E-L-R-O-D

2008-11-08T20:52:00.000-06:00

When looking at the making of the president 2008, the most important single factor has been largely overlooked or under appreciated by the press. David Axelrod.

Sure, he has appeared on a few interview programs and taken the podium at some press conferences, but for a guy in his position, he has maintained a surprisingly low profile -- at least before Election Day. That is the Axelrod style.

As political consultants in the same Chicago political arena for many years, but on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I have had modest association with him on various campaign trials. I have known him, and of him, since he was a reporter. We have been counterpoints on any number of talk shows. Can’t say I know him well personally, but I do know him professionally.

David is probably the most determined and aggressive political guru in America, but he has almost no desire to be a celebrity in his own right. He keeps his total focus on his clients, and he has impressive ones – Mayor Daley, Bill Clinton and a number of leading Democrat candidates across the country. He does not confuse celebrity with success, as many political advisors do.

I would argue against anyone who says that Barack Obama could have made it to the White House without David. Frankly, without David, I think Obama would still be a community-based activist. Don’t get me wrong. Obama is brilliant, articulate and ambitious, and he brings a lot of natural candidate talent to the table -- but so do a lot of other people.

Obama is a great raw product, but with many distasteful features. David is the genius who could not only package and sell Obama by highlighting and playing on his strong points, but who to make the other products unpalatable by comparison.

I never thought Obama could make it to the White House without a major crises and an inept opponent (and he got both). He has run for office four times. With more ambition than brains, he took on Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush in a Democrat primary. He didn’t win against this seasoned and savvy opponent, but he did get noticed. Lowering his sights, Obama went for the Illinois State Senate. Rather than risk a competent opponent, Obama, with the help of the fabled Chicago Democrat machine, used aggressive technical challenges -- and the cooperation of machine election officials -- to remove all his opponents form the ballot -- including the incumbent. He ran unopposed.

His jump to the U.S. Senate was a bold endeavor for a neophyte state legislator. Again, it was ambition over brains, but this time he got lucky. He signed up David Axelrod. Then he got even luckier. The hapless Illinois GOP first floundered with millionaire businessman Jack Ryan, a worthy opponent until it was revealed that he and his movie star wife (Jeri Ryan) had visited sex clubs in New York and Paris.

The Republicans, in an effort to advance their reputation as the stupid party, imported conservative gadfly Alan Keyes, a kooky black perennial presidential candidate. After only a couple undistinguished years in the Senate, Obama succumbed to the siren call of the presidency. Again it as a precocious move – challenging the all but certain nomination of Hillary Clinton. This time Obama was facing real competition, but he got lucky again. The Early primaries featured a bunch of moderate white candidates to divide up the vote – leaving Obama with a unified black/progressive core.

Once he secured the nomination, he was just another unelectable Democrat … unless … unless there was some seismic political event or the GOP opponent screwed up. Again, he was lucky. Instead of “or,” Obama got “and.” The economy tanked at just the right time – as the Republicans were experiencing the beginning of a post-election surge. AND … the Republicans offered up maverick John McCain, who proceeded to run one of the worse campaigns in American history.

But, what about David Axelrod?

NONE of this would have gotten Obama elected had it not been for the genius of Axelrod. Conversely, I am convinced David would have guided Clinton to the Oval Office had he accepted her invitation to be part of the Clinton team, as he was in the past.

No defection cost Clinton more than David Axelrod. David IS strategy. You hire him, you get the Axelrod method -- and a winning one it is. The Clinton campaign should have made him an offer he could not refuse. The decision to let him go doomed her candidacy, as it turned out.

David never believed in the conventional political wisdom that you do not respond to negative attacks. In fact, David takes the position that no attack, no matter how seemingly insignificant, should go unchallenged. Without this aggressive and effective strategy of refutation, Obama’s candidacy would have sunk early on under the weight of mini-scandals, questionable associations, a cloudy, if not shady, past and a political philosophy far too liberal for mainstream America.

Rather than allow his past to be discovered by others, like his one time opponent, Jack Ryan, Obama laid out most of it in his books. As the political jargon goes, he “inoculated” against criticism. This is classic Axelrod.

David knew that to become the President, Obama had to look and sound presidential. Orating like Jesse Jackson was a kiss of death. Obama's Harvard education and artidulation were natural tools. David created and controlled the visual and verbal imagery. He treated Obama like an actor, and he, David, would show him how to play the part of President of the United States. The clothes, the staging, the photos, the gestures, the oratory. All very carefully crafted and scripted.
Just as important as David’s craftsmanship was Obama’s willingness to stick to the script. He played the part to perfection. In an amazing turn-about, the first black candidate for the presidency actually looked, acted and sounded more presidential than the classic gray-haired white guy.

More than any consultant I know, David understands the issue of credibility. Having taught college-level course in credibility, and having invented a credibility management concept, I have always been in awe of David. He never took one of my courses, but he is a natural. He knows, that if you destroy an opponents credibility, there is nothing they can say or do to convince the public of anything.

If you look at the Obama campaign through the credibility lens, you can see how the campaign used every possible technique to strip first Hillary Clinton, then McCain, and finally the whole Republican Party, or their credibility. Every time McCain changed his mind, or said something that seemed at odds with an earlier statement, the Obama campaign trumpeted it. These “inconsistencies” were then elevated to lies. McCain lies. Palin lies. Bush lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Republican = lies.

The success of this strategy was even more impressive since McCain came into this campaign aboard the “straight talk express.” HE was the straight talker. HE was the man good as his word. HE was the tell-it-like-it-is guy. Thanks to Axelrod, the straight talk express got derailed, and McCain limped into town with the reputation of a snake oil salesman -- or more specifically, the third term of the unpopular George Bush. With the very credibility of the Repbulican brand damaged, Obama's every word became gospel and McCain could say nothing believeable to the electorate.

David also has a great talent for generating discipline. Rarely will one see a campaign were the entire team worked so well together. Through his own example, David was able to get the team to set aside the usual political differences and prima donna attitudes and focus on two things -- candidate and message.

Wherever Axelrod lands in the coming months – White House aide, outside consultant – he will play a major role in guiding the entire Democrat ship as its guru-in-chief. He will be the strategy connection between his President, the Democrat National Committee, and the Senate and house campaign committees. He will be issuing the guidelines to the state parties and candidates. David could well be the most powerful political figure in America next to President Obama. He is the personification of the Chicago machine coming to Washington. He is Karl Rove on steroids.

Just you watch.