Once is an Accident, Twice a Coincidence, the Third Time it's ON PURPOSE.

Saturday, September 25, 2010



WITH THE 2010 MID-TERMS OMINOUSLY LOOMING just a scant few weeks away, rhetoric from all corners of the political spectrum has ramped up considerably as the stakes have never been higher in decades, if not generations for the direction - and definition - of our country. We've been witness to desperate and discouraged Democrats invoking their last-ditch, yet familiar screeds of "Bush, Bush, Bush and, oh yes... Raaaaacists!" in defense of their monstrously unpopular policies. Then there's the Republicans, grappling with party identity problems, infighting between the wannabes and the establishment and bashing the current party-in-power with accusations of governmental overreach and of out-of-touchedness. New to the political landscape is the conservative, right-leaning, grassroots Tea Party movement which hasn't shown much love for either party, but has boisterously voiced its collective disenchantment, if not utter disdain and outright condemnation, for the Obama-Reid-Pelosi, massive government, job-killing, economy-choking, wealth-redistributing, aggressive-Progressive agenda.

As is the case in most elections, these somewhat, if not entirely, entrenched, polarized factions have - for all intent and purposes - already cemented their votes with their respective party's candidates. Nothing, and I mean nothing, could shake this committed electorate to vote other than straight down the good ol' party line. So that only leaves the Undecideds. You know, the ones who refuse to tell some insipid pollster who they may vote for because it's none of their damn business, or they choose to keep their vote private on principle, or they really just haven't made up their minds yet. More importantly, these Undecideds will most certainly tip the balance of power in one, if not both, houses of Congress, by being the deciding factors in several too-close-to-call, hotly-contested House and Senate races.

So, with so much riding on their votes, with all the mud and fur flying, with all the accusations swirling, and with all the fingerpointing - well - pointing, what's an undecided voter to do come November 2nd? What could possibly nudge them one direction or the other?

Not to worry, Undecideds, I did a little research that may just help you sort out this confounding conundrum. And you Dems, Repubs and Tea Party-ers may also want to read on. You might just learn a thing or two from a couple important voices from America's past.


Two of the most venerable voices in all of American history belong to none other than two of our Founding Fathers, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was the primary author the Declaration of Independence and perhaps America's most treasured philosopher. Madison was the chief architect of our other greatest founding document, the Constitution. These two icons of America-past didn't always see eye-to-eye on everything, but they were both undeniable patriots, who both lived under the crushing tyrannical rule of King George and the Brits, who both found uncommon courage and who both articulated the foundational principles that helped to break free a fledgling collection of colonies to ultimately become the greatest country the world has every known.


Since 2008, when then-little-known Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was dreamily swept into office with his "Hope and Change" mantra by a horde of swooning, Jim Jonesian followers, America has lurched violently to the left. Few who voted for Obama seemed to pay much attention to nor care about the specifics of his radical, Progressive utopian promises, instead seemed more mesmerized by the mere sound of his messianic voice, his Elmer Gantry-like trappings and their disenchantment with George W. Bush's abandonment of his conservative principles that led directly to the economic meltdown now known as The Great Recession.

"Bush sucks, long live the Great Obama" was the chorus of the day.

But now that Obama and his willing accomplices in both houses of Congress have unilaterally rammed through some of the most defining, albeit wildly unpopular, and damaging elements of their agenda, the broad electorate not only has contracted a severe case of sticker shock, they seem to be suffering from a dizzying case of buyers' remorse. With every passing day, the majority of Americans concur that this whole "Obama thing" might have been a horrible mistake.

Below we will take a look at some of Obama's "landmark" legislation, as well as some other issues that currently sit on the table, and contrast quotes from Obama and his allies regarding those issues with actual quotes from Jefferson and Madison concerning similar issues that confronted them from the earliest days of our Republic. The distinctions will speak for themselves.

Let the "debate" begin...


Barack Obama says:

"Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don’t have health insurance to buy it, or there will be a lot of people who don’t get it. But if you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it’s not affordable, then there’s going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge fines to people who already don’t have health care, or take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don’t think, is helping those without health insurance."

James Madison responds:

"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them...the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."


Nanci Pelosi says:

"But we (Democrats) have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

James Madison responds:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."


Obama says:

"I believe that legislation of this enormous magnitude, that by necessity we are moving quickly -- we're not moving quickly because we're trying to jam something down people's throats. We're moving quickly because we're told that if we don't move quickly, that the economy is going keep on getting worse, and we'll have another 2 or 3 or 4 million jobs loss this year. So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.) "

Thomas Jefferson responds:

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the following generations to pay is morally irresponsible. Excessive debt is a means by which governments oppress the people and waste their substance. The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife."

James Madison adds:

"To say that the United States should be answerable for twenty-five millions (or trillions) of dollars without knowing whether the ways and means can be provided, and without knowing whether those who are to succeed us will think with us on the subject, would be rash and unjustifiable. Sir, in my opinion, it would be hazarding the public faith in a manner contrary to every idea of prudence."


Obama says:
“Right now, we could decide that every American household would receive a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income…The leaders across the aisle..want to hold these middle-class tax cuts hostage until they get an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. It would mean borrowing $700 billion..to give a tax cut..to millionaires and billionaires.

Thomas Jefferson responds:

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species."


Obama says:

"Now suddenly if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen. You know, you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they might be, quote, illegal immigrants. That's not the right way to go."

James Madison responds:

"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?"


Obama says:

"When you watch certain news channels, you know, which are not very popular, and see, ah, you see folks waving tea bags around...I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. (Laughing and cheering.) You would think they'd be saying thank you."

Thomas Jefferson responds:

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."


Obama says:

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

James Madison responds:

"So there are particular moments in public affairs, when the people stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn."

In their own words, Madison and Jefferson, as well as almost all the other "Founding Fathers", were at direct philosophical odds with practically everything the Obama hope-and-changers represent. These great, historical men would be appalled to see what their magnificent vision of America is being "fundamentally transformed" into by the Obama administration and its abettors in Congress.

On November 2nd, every American who is registered to vote has the opportunity to change the path on which this country regrettably finds itself. I urge you to reflect over the next few weeks on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the brave men who crafted them. Look carefully at the people running for office in your district and state, and then ask yourself truthfully, "Would Jefferson and Madison have voted for them?"

Tuesday, September 21, 2010



BY NOW JUST ABOUT EVERY AMERICAN VERTEBRATE  is keenly aware that all hell broke loose shortly after Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan announced their intention of building a $100 million "Islamic Cultural Center", replete with a swimming pool, gym, 500-seat auditorium, restaurant, culinary school, library - and of course - an Islamic mosque just two New York City blocks from the hallowed 9/11 Ground Zero site where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center crashed to earth in a fiery cloud of steel and flesh. Politicians from both sides of the aisle - including a reluctant President Obama - passionately and quickly weighed in on the Imam's proclamation in the ensuing days. "They may seek to exploit our freedoms, but we will not sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. They may wish to drive us apart, but we will not give in to their hatred and prejudice," President Obama said while defending the building of the Center. "As Americans we are not — and never will be — at war with Islam. It was not a religion that attacked us that September day — it was al-Qaida, a sorry band of men which perverts religion." 

Pollsters and pundits, as well as the usual suspects on cable news and talk radio, also followed with a spate of debate concerning the constitutionality and the appropriateness of the proposed controversial Islamic Center. The American public didn't waste much time either in venting their strongly held, albeit polarizing, views which ticked the emotion-meter from compassionate to utterly outraged. In the end, despite the disputation of the propriety of the project, the consensus opinion from every political stripe was that the community center was constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment right to free speech, and since Lower Manhattan's Community Board voted 29-1 in favor of the project, the way was seemingly paved for the Imam and his followers to build their center. 


In an August 19th TIME poll, A clear majority of Americans - 61% - opposed the construction of the so-called Park 51/Cordoba House project, with more than 70% responding that proceeding with such a plan would be a frontal assault to the victims and families of the WTC attacks. In short, most Americans felt that building an Islamic mosque so close to the site of the worst foreign-born attack on US soil since WW II was at the very least insensitive, and at the very most a direct slap in the face to those who suffered the devastating consequences of maniacal Islamic jihadists.  Conversely, Imam Rauf and other Muslim leaders, as well as a still substantial minority of Americans, viewed the dissent to the proposed Community Center as "Islamophobic".  The argument went that the project was a peaceful venture and meant no harm whatsoever to the 9/11 victims and their grieving families. In fact, the proposed Cordoba House was portrayed as a "healing center", where people of all faiths could come and reflect on that fateful day. However, that argument did not stop conspiracy theories from abounding, such as the assertion that the Cordoba House was nothing short of a "victory mosque" for the triumphant jihadists and its building was a brick and steel celebration of Islam's crushing defeat of the Western "infidels". 


This whole thing stinks to high heaven. 

Imam Rauf's outrageous statements immediately following 9/11, suggesting that America was partly, if not wholly, to blame for the terror attacks, his and his wife's supercilious refusal to denounce Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and his recent "60 Minutes" revelation that moving the mosque now would almost certainly provoke more terror attacks, belie his cumbaya motives. Rauf is disingenuous to be kind. He's a bald-faced liar to be blunt. The pale argument that Americans are unfairly painting all Muslims with a broad brush when, in fact, it was just a teensy-weensy sect of irritants who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, just doesn't wash. Where was the deafening, overwhelming outcry from the vast Muslim world after those Twin Towers came crashing down? Crickets. I believe that's referred to as "silence as assent". In fact, I distinctly remember watching video upon video of Muslims around the world deliriously jumping up and down, firing AK-47's into the air and burning Old Glory in effigy. Not exactly a "we feel your pain" moment. But I digress. Muslims and their mostly Democratic front groups have repeatedly scolded the American public for their "intolerance" since this whole Ground Zero Mosque scandal slimed out from under a rock. What these people don't understand is that Americans aren't intolerant, they're just suspicious. Righteously suspicious. There's a big difference. 

Despite open-wound memories of Muslims cheering America's tragedy, few today begrudge the Imam and his cohorts the freedom to build their mosque. This is America dammit, build away. But for God's sake, build the damn thing just a little further down the lane, wouldya? And then there's this... Why should we be tolerant anyway? And why must we be made to feel guilty and ashamed for not prostrating ourselves in front of the demanding Muslim world to prove our tolerance? Here's a novel idea... Instead of Americans being demanded of to prove their tolerance, how about demanding the Muslim world prove their trustworthiness? Let's suppose for a moment, shall we? Suppose instead of Muslims the WTC was attacked by, say, Southern Baptists (I used to be SB, so take a few deep breaths... it's just a metaphor). I continue... Certifiable, fire-breathing, hell, fire and brimstone nut-jobs from the Bible Belt. Got the picture? Following the attacks, we see videos on all the major news outlets (except for MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC) of Southern Baptists in churches all across this great land raising their hands in near-hysterical celebration at the devastating sight. Needless to say, Americans would be justified to view these folks with a healthy dose of jaundiced eye. One could easily imagine, especially if you're a liberal, the severe backlash against this religion - or any religion or ethnic group for that matter. And then, should an outspoken, controversial pastor from this religion announce he intends to build a Southern Baptist church at the site of the former Burlington Coat factory, I imagine there might be some pushback. Would this be intolerant? 

Let's be honest, Americans should be suspicious of Muslims' intents. Especially ones as oily as Rauf. Anything less would be irresponsible. Similarly, those dopey Trojans would have been wise to question the authentic motives of the Greeks as they were hulking that giant wooden steed in through their welcoming gates to their ultimate demise. Yes, even though the Greek's assured those gullible Trojans it was just a "peaceful gift". 

Now, I'm sure some will misguidedly liken the philosophy of "righteous suspicion" as an echo of the iconic Democrat FDR's Executive Order 9066 that unfairly and non-uniformly sent over 100,000 innocent Japanese-Americans to "War Relocation Camps" after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The thing is, nobody is suggesting nor demanding ICE round up and toss innocent Muslims (that would be the day) into internment camps. And even if we did, AG Eric Holder would make sure they enjoyed movie nights, bingo and plenty of fresh vegetables. Seriously, all we're asking for is a little sensitivity and empathy towards the 9/11 victims and America as a whole. Is that too much to ask? I think not. Those simple-but-yet-to-be-seen acts would go along way towards the healing process and the easing of America's righteous suspicion.

As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."