Keep a Civil Tongue in Your Head

November 17, 2009

I’ve had enough.

Starting back in March and April, when the whole concept of the Tea Parties was in its infancy, the wits and wags on the left decided to take a page from Saul Alinsky’s playbook and bring ridicule to bear on the whole endeavor. But not just simple ridicule.

What they did was far worse. They turned the efforts and engagement of millions of earnest people into a dirty joke. A graphically sexual insider joke. They started calling us “teabaggers.” (The original definition of “teabagging,” for those few of you who are still unaware of it, can be found here.)

Yes, pundits, bloggers, anchors, Congresspeople, presidents, called us “teabaggers.” What class! What elan! What finely-honed debating skills! What exemplars of surpassing intellect they are.

But just suppose the shoe were on the other foot?

Imagine if you will, that for some reason, those on the left were protesting roosters and Tootsie Pops. Walking around in crowds of thousands and tens of thousands locally. Hundreds of thousands to a million on a given day in Washington D.C. Carrying signs protesting chickens and lollipops.

Innocuous items, to be sure, but you can bet your bottom dollar that nobody, and I mean nobody on the right (or the left, for that matter) would be casually referring to them in print, on televsion or video, or online, as cock-suckers.

It defies belief that any of these people used that word without knowing what it meant.

And yet, this is what the left does. Having no valid argument to present against the Tea Parties, they resort to using phrases that reduce them to the level of sniggering seventh-graders. It’s an in-joke that only the cool kids get, and the poor rubes doing the protesting are left scratching their heads, wondering why the in-crowd is laughing at them,

Well, the poor rubes doing the protesting are getting mighty sick of it. If the in-crowd doesn’t look out, they, too, will awaken the sleeping giant and fill him with resolve.

Hey kids, be careful… The giant is starting to stir. By 2010, he’ll be awake. And he’ll be hungry.

UPDATE: Jay Tea over at Wizbang has a slightly different reaction to the term…


Blaming Rush and Hannity For Obama’s Presidency?

July 8, 2009

If you’re like me, you wince daily at the latest Obamination from our Telepromter-In-Chief.  It amazes me that so much of the American public still hasn’t caught on to his overt agenda, given the way he sucks up to tyrants like Chavez, Putin, and others, while shying away from our traditional allies. But more on that in another rant.

It dawned on me recently that the Obama Presidency may be, believe it or not, the end-result of a couple of practical jokes gone wrong. And we can thank Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for playing an instrumental role in winding up with an Alinsky-ite tyrant rather than a President.

How is that possible? It’s very simple: Think back about 18 months, when the longest campaign in Presidential election history was already in full stride. It was pretty much assumed the Democratic nominee would be the fulfillment of destiny meeting the ultimate entitlement, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.  It was a foregone conclusion, actually.

In their zeal to thwart all things Clinton, both Rush and Hannity came up with their own attempts to discredit Clinton.

El Rushbo

El Rushbo

Limbaugh had his “Operation Chaos” which taunted, cajoled, ridiculed, disagreed with, and in general trashed Senator Clinton every chance he got (which usually meant three hours a day). To his credit, there is no one finer than Limbaugh when it comes to having the subtlety of an angry moose in rutting season.

Meanwhile, Sean  Hannity chimed in with his own rendition called “The Stop Hillary Express.” He would essentially mirror the same issues as

Sean Hannity

Sean Hannity

Rush, but in a higher, more annoying voice, over and over and over… until, like a soap opera, I discovered I could turn off Hannity’s show for days at a time and really not miss a thing. The next time I’d turn on his show, he’d be hammering the same points, constantly reassuring us with his favorite expression in the world: “Let not your heart be troubled.”  He, too, was very convincing in his anti-Hillary campaign.

Both hosts are now very painfully aware of the expression, “Be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.”

To what extent are they responsible for the Clinton Campaign Collapse? That’s anyone’s guess.  But certainly, Clinton’s star sank faster than Michael Vick’s dogfood endorsement deal. And while they both searched for ten-foot poles to distance themselves from John McCain, one Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign hit the turbo button.  And we all know the outcome from that point on.

Now you won’t hear either of them mention this on their shows. They’ll both point out that they were just as agressive in their efforts to trivialize the candidacy of “the man who would be King.”  And they were. But their contribution to the victory of Obama is not insignificant. Their efforts (and results) alone should be reasons the Obama administration should not feel the need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

Am I being sarcastic or serious? In truth, it’s a little bit of both, just as were Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s campaigns. And I have the highest regard for both as broadcasters even though I am critical on this issue.

But every time Emperor Obama makes another apology for our success in America; every time he lies through his teeth about not raising taxes on us “little people”; every time he sides with a socialist, dictator, or mullah against the common people everywhere; and every time he drags this country closer to the point of no return regarding our national debt, I just can’t help but wonder what John McCain or another Clinton in the White House might have done. It may not have been pretty, but I’m pretty damn sure our position and credibility in the world wouldn’t be as bleak as it is, nor would our chances of being hit by an internal terrorist attack be as high.

And that’s not sarcasm. That’s a bloody serious fear.

Gerry Ashley

Blago Impeached, But Not Out… And Burris?

January 9, 2009

Yeah, Blago was dumped by the Ill. House 114 – 1. We all saw that coming some way some how. Thoughts…

  • Who was the one who voted for Blagojevich? (I’ll have to look that up.)
  • Just because “Mr. B.” is now “Mr. Impeached” doesn’t mean that he’ll actually have to step down. Consider “Mr. Bubba”
  • Most importantly, what about Burris? (If this was a cheap shot to further taint Roland Burris’ congressional seating, that would be the cheapest shot of all.)

Alan Speakman

The Rise of Caroline Kennedy

December 17, 2008


This post could have had any number of titles: “Resurrection of the Kennedy Clan”, or “The Clintons Fizzle Out”, or “Kennedys are Deep Blue Sea and Clintons are Shallow Whitewater”, or even “The Dynasty Game: Kennedy 4: Clinton 0″. The title could have been most anything, but the essence of the Kennedy vs. Clinton royal families (if you will) comes down to this. As it stands now, Caroline Kennedy has a real chance to take Hillary’s vacated senate seat, and that speaks volumes as to the depth of the Kennedy Legacy and the shallowness of that of the Clintons.

Think of this… The Kennedys weave four stunning threads into the fabric of America:

  • Joe Jr. was a WW II hero who died while flying an extraordinarily dangerous volunteer mission.
  • JFK was… Well… You know the litany… Injured war hero, the moon, civil rights, anti-communism, a defining president for the 20th century and beyond, etc., etc., etc. But as we all know, he was cut down by an assassin’s bullet.
  • Bobby Kennedy might have been the ringer in the whole Kennedy clan. His efforts toward civil rights, his ferocity in taking on the mob, his 1966 opposition to apartheid in South Africa… Bobby was a brilliant, wise man. (During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK turned to Bobby… After the crisis was over, JFK said publicly, “Thank God for Bobby“.) But Bobby too was assassinated.
  • Finally, there’s Eunice Kennedy, founder of the Special Olympics. Reagan gave her the highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Thin air indeed.

Yes, we all know that the Kennedys were and are wheelers and dealers, as are the Clintons. But the difference is that the Kennedys have earned their place not just by wheeling and dealing but by tragic sweat and blood, and lots of it.

To make matters worse for the Clintons, Caroline is no shrinking violet. Not only is she a seasoned lawyer, but she’s also a board member of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. While the credentials might not be overwhelming, they contain substance.

Simply put, yet another Kennedy stands ready to take significant office (and more than equal Teddy). If Caroline becomes “Senator Caroline”, and I think she will, that will signal not one but two sea changes: The Kennedys rise yet again, and the aging Clintons fade to personae non gratae.

Caroline 2012? 2016?

(One last thing to keep in mind… The last Secretary of State to ascend to the Presidency was James Buchanan, and that was back in the mid 1800s.)

Alan Speakman

The Economy, Obama, and the Facts No One Dares to Tell You

November 8, 2008

For some time, I’ve been ranting about how our new, high-tech, global village was going to slap Americans in the face concerning the relative value of life and labor in this sphere.

Well, given the administration-to-be, it just seems fair to break down the economic numbers and give a “Big Picture” outline the mess Clinton, Bush, and Obama didn’t/doesn’t/won’t have the stomach to warn you about. (Fair warning… These numbers are roughly based on 2005… But it really doesn’t matter – it’s the sheer magnitude that’s staggering. In any event, I’ve documented my sources, and this should offer a good snapshot as to where we are headed.)

The average American will earn about $1.2 million dollars in his (or her) life (… This round number can easily be corroborated with the fact that the current average American yearly income is $34.5k, and will span 40 years. Yes, that number will change, but so will the cost of staying alive. Again, this is just a snapshot.)

Alrighty then, we’ve got $1.2 million dollars in our “American Citizen Earned Savings Account”. How do we spend it? Well, currently the numbers break down as follows:

Hypothetically, our typical American today will end up spending $300,000 plus in health care over his or her lifetime. So that right there will gobble up 25% of an entire life’s earnings.

What else? Well, simple warmth and shelter will consume another 33%. And then there’s 13% for food, 4% for cloths, and 18% for transportation. (

So, just surviving will consume 93% of our life’s earnings, or about 1.1 million dollars each. Now comes the fun part – taxes. A decent guesstimate of all taxes paid is 30%. So, “Joe the Sixpack” is spending 123% of his life’s work. Keep in mind that these numbers don’t take into account the cost of children, college, or that sailboat you’ve always wanted. This overextension is why Glenn Beck and Comptroller General David Walker are having a collective kitten in the video below.

The simple fact is that we’re in deep doo dee, and our politicians (including Obama) won’t face it, or at least they won’t talk about it. By 2012, the country will be at least $60,000,000,000,000 in the hole, and only a damned fool would run for office.

Let’s see… Water? Check! MREs? Check! Cabin in woods? Check! Ammunition? Check!

Alan Speakman

Falling Victim to a Classic Blunder

September 23, 2008


Sen. Obama chose Sen. Biden as his running mate. It’s a done deal, there’s no going back. Obama very pointedly did not select Sen. Clinton; in fact, he didn’t even bother to have her vetted. Courtesy might have suggested that his staff do a cursory vetting; dignity might have recommended it; prudence might have dictated it. Regardless, Obama and his staff very publicly left Hillary off the short list, and in doing so:

“You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is ‘Never get involved in a land war in Asia,’ but only slightly less well known is this: ‘Never go in against a Clinton when an election is on the line.”

And so having gone in against a Clinton and so casually dismissed her after his Primary victory, Obama fell victim to a classic blunder: he underestimated the Clintons. He probably expected them to campaign for him. After all, Democrats must stick together and win the White House back from the horrible regime of Chimpy McHitlerburton and his Evil League of Evil. Party solidarity trumps all else…

Or does it? In the case of the Clintons, the answer is clearly, “No, it does not.” Oh, they’ll pretend to support him. They’ll pay lip service to the party line and the nominee. They may even say some nice things about him and Sen Biden. But full-throated support? Not even close. We have seen this frequently since Sen. Clinton stepped down suspended her campaign. Her speech to the convention in Denver: about Obama? No, about Hillary Clinton. Her support in speeches around the country has been at best tepid, and at worst has elicited responses from concerned party members. At a recent rally in Florida: “It was a platonic type of endorsement,” Mr. Montes said. “It wasn’t real love. She’s just doing what she’s supposed to be doing.” And “’She should have been a little more forceful and more convincing.’ Ms. Payne said.”

Obama’s lack of understanding of the Clinton mindset could prove to be his Achilles heel, the thing that in the end, dooms his candidacy. It reinforces a sort of naivete or obliviousness to the politicking going on, not just behind his back, but in speeches and on national television. It once again calls into question his judgment; and with no executive experience, only a few days in the Senate, and extremely questionable friends and associates, his judgment is about all he has to campaign on. How’s that working out for you, Senator?

The latest example of his confusion and mis-underestimation concerning the Clintons came yesterday, courtesy of The View. Here’s Bill, discussing whom to vote for, noticeably lacking that clarion call of support to Obama:

Never count the Clintons out. Never.


Lehman Bros et al. What Went Wrong?

September 16, 2008

Knowing virtually nothing about economics, and occasionally watching the living room idiot box, I wondered, “How in the name of Sam Hill did our country get into this mess?” What do the talking heads mean by expressions like: “‘No Income, No Job and No Assets’ loans”; “liar loans”; and “piggyback loans”? No really… The explanations of those phrases couldn’t possibly be as crab-hoppin’ crazy as they sound, right?

Thankfully, Steven Pearlstein’s “‘No Money Down’ Falls Flat” explains all the expressions. (And yes, the banking policies they depict are crab-hoppin’ crazy.) Read Mr. Pearlstein’s piece, but just be ready to throw something.

Alright, the loony loan practices explained (I wish I could insert the “end of the Benny Hill Show” tune here), I next pondered how the laws had changed. When I got out of college back in ’79, in ’85, and finally in ’91, a person had to pretty much have an established well-paying career, and a willingness to offer a lung as collateral before he/she could get a home loan. What happened?

More searching brought me to “The Real Culprits In This Meltdown“…

Silly me… The new-to-me ’90s legislation bore the classic Clinton stamp. Crab-hoppin’ crazy… And I don’t let Bush et al off the hook on this one either. Every day at 1600, Dubya should have been screaming at anyone with a camera that a disaster was brewing. Wow… Just wow.

And that’s what went wrong.

Alan Speakman

Hillary’s Dilemma

September 11, 2008

Hillary Clinton is in an interesting position right about now. The Obama campaign seems to be self-destructing; with every gaffe and mis-step, Obama’s poll numbers continue to sink like a stone. His hand-picked V.P.’s comment of yesterday are just the latest blunder in a week already full of them — and it’s barely Thursday!

If Sen. Biden’s health (cough, cough) suddenly takes a turn for the worse (which would reinforce the perception of Obama’s lack of judgement), what could Sen. Clinton expect… and what would she offer?

It seems to me that “catbird seat” is not too strong a phrase to use here for Sen. Clinton’s position. Almost certainly, if Biden bows out, the party (if not actually Obama himself) will turn to her, hoping for salvation. Whether she can, or is inclined to, deliver it is an entirely different story indeed.

I see several possible scenarios:

Obama/Biden continue until the election, with the current wishy-washy level of support that the Clintons are providing. Obama loses badly, putting Hillary in prime position as 2012′s Democratic contender.

Obama/Biden continue until the election, with a newly-energized level of support by Hill and Bill. Obama loses, not quite so badly, still placing Hillary as 2012′s candidate for the Dems.

Obama jettisons Biden, and he does it soon. In this case, does he invite Hillary onto the ticket? I say he absolutely must, if he has any hope of winning (he doesn’t, not any more). If he offers, does she accept? Well, what’s in it for her? The vice presidency is obviously not her goal. Could she negotiate a one-term deal with Obama, and run in the top spot in 2012? How badly does he want it now? Badly enough to give it away in four years? (There goes his eight- to ten-year presidency!) I don’t think so.

How about a Supreme Court seat? Could he guarantee it? No. Would she fall for it? Again, no.

I think Hillary’s only option, should the VP be offered, is to raise a fuss about Obama’s judgement and leadership ability, pull a Lieberman, register as an Independent, and continue her run for the top slot. She won’t make it, but she’ll split the vote, leaving the field to McCain and Palin, become a heroine to her 18 million voters, and position herself (again) perfectly for a 2012 run.

I think this last scenario is the one that’s keeping Obama awake nights. And well it should. Machiavelli has nothing on Hillary Clinton. And, at this point, it would seem that George McGovern has nothing on Barack Obama.


The Emperor Is Losing His Clothing

August 22, 2008

Obama Exposes Himself

Fresh off the embarrassing show put on by Obama at last Saturday’s Saddleback Civil Forum, it’s abundantly clear to this registered Independent that being President is clearly “above Obama’s pay grade.” Evidently, Obama is under the impression that all that is necessary to win these debates (and, in fact, the Presidency) is simply “be there.” I find that a delicious irony, because the more I listen to him attempt to speak extemporaneously, the more he reminds me of Peter Seller’s character “Chance” in the movie Being There. “The Man Who Would Be Emperor” is quickly exposing himself as an emperor without clothing.

The end result is a campaign that finds itself with a trilogy of dilemmas facing Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party in toto.

  • Obama’s Dilemma - Do I Really Have Any Choice As A Running Mate?

He’s ridden the buzz of expectation regarding a running mate for so long now, anything short of a stunning announcement is likely to be met with, “Yawn…Do you want fries with that?” At this point, it’s obvious to everyone (with the possible exception of Obama himself) he’s GOT to choose Hillary or risk losing her large support base and, in doing so, the election. Putting her on the ticket is a huge step towards walking away with the election. But it also means 4 or possibly even 8 years with Bill and Hillary second-guessing him, plus the knowledge that he needed a (gasp!) woman to help him win. Either way, the Clinton egos MUST be served, or else.

  • Hillary’s Dilemma – Should she accept Obama’s VP offer?

If she does accept the VP nod and the ticket wins 2 terms, she’ll probably be considered too old (69) to run for Pres when he’s done. If she refuses, and he loses, she’s available to “save the party” 4 years from now. I think we all know that her ego wants the GOLD medal not the Silver. She’d rather let Obama and the Democrats FAIL this time out so she can look even better after-the-fact and going into the 2012 campaign.

If she refuses and Obama finds a way to win, she and Bill will be forced to the sidelines. But the chances of that are relatively small. She’s better off taking her chances refusing him, if she seriously wants to run again in 2012. Even if Obama is an incumbent, if he is doing poorly she can be to Obama what Bobby Kennedy was to Lyndon Johnson and grab the nomination away from an incumbent who is seen as too weak to be re-elected. Believe it or not, Hillary is still very much in the driver’s seat. And you know this has to be eating away at Obama.

  • The Democratic Party’s Dilemma – What Do We Do NOW?

They are essentially STUCK with Obama who further exposes his lack of leadership skills and experience every time he opens his mouth. Do they pressure him to choose Hillary? You’re damn right they do! But that’s putting all their egos into one basket. And if that basket fails to sell, will that tarnish their golden girl’s chances four years from now?

Obama has thus far been able to tap dance his way around answering questions in any detail, failing time after time to give any specifics in his answers. However, once he accepts the nomination, that luxury will be gone. I predict the pressure from the few remaining members of the legitimate media will force the pendulum of journalism to start it’s downward swing. As it does, even “The Chosen One” will no longer be able to cover up his real relationship with people like terrorist William Ayers, convcted felon Tony Rezko, and the “Chicago political machine” where even the dead can vote more than once.

America is rapidly discovering that Obama’s pledge of being “The candidate of change” is nothing more than an empty cliche. Each time he opens his mouth the emperor seems to come up one garment short. In fact, if he continues to expose himself like this, he could be in danger of being arrested for public nudity before the election. And without the assistance of Hillary to pull him through, more and more Hillary supporters and “undecideds” will be looking to establish their own “6 degrees of separation.”

I never thought I’d ever paraphrase the Reverend Jeremiah “Not so” Wright, but here it is: Given his history of arrogance, hubris, and choice of “friends,” it would seem that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, “Obama’s chickens… are coming home to roost.”

Gerry Ashley

What’s Gone Wrong With Liberalism?

August 17, 2008

What has gone wrong with liberalism?

(What follows will be an anomaly for this blog. We started “Grand Rants” with the intent of documenting the bedevil out of each tirade… Yet this one will go sans research, and is more of a travelogue from very young liberal to mature conservative. Besides, if I can post and at the same time take care of the “About” section of this Web log, that’s a win-win in my book. Expect the unexpected on this blog.)


Back in the early 1960s, I was a liberal. I was just a small child but It all made sense then. Race relations were an abomination, and hard-core conservatives (and worse) were the problem. Women were little more than sex objects and domestic servants. And global freedom meant something, at least to the JFK liberals. Oh, the grown-up liberals weren’t perfect – far from it. But at least it seemed that they were on the right track to a little kid weaned on “Superman” and “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”.

But then something started to go wrong. For me, I think the first inkling that something was kittywampus with the liberal agenda was in the late 1960s when I was watching “Green Berets” (featuring John Wayne). (Man, that was a terrible movie!) In one scene Wayne describes the brutal rape and murder of a Vietnamese woman by the VC or NVA… As our house was a virtual way station for hippies, the general consensus was that it was the evil Americans who did that sort of thing and not the enemy. That just didn’t ring true (there’s that Superman thing, again)… Yes we were responsible for My Lai, but by that time I’d seen enough of the TV news to know that we were fighting against people who all too often displayed cruel tendencies. Later I was vindicated by massacres at Huế and Dak Son. (You don’t know those names do you?) The final slaughter came when we left Vietnam and Cambodia, and roughly one and half million innocent souls met their fates at the hands of the communist Khmer Rouge et al. The brutality that was our exception was the communist’s rule, and the liberals didn’t even blink.

And so it went… In the 1970s, the “Sexual Revolution” and the “Drug Culture” slammed into high gear. Again, (this time to an adolescent/young adult), something just didn’t feel right. Don’t get me wrong… The liberal approach sure had its allure, but it lacked common sense. Say no more.

By the 1980s, I was finally beginning to nail it down… I was moving from gut instinct to objective thought and solidifying my ideas about politics, society, and human nature. I’d earned two 2-year degrees (Psych and Microprocessor Tech), and was a big Reagan fan. Still the liberals went nuts… “Ronnie Ray-Gun” was going to get us all killed, and the lefties had to dress in sheets decorated as skeletons and march by the thousands. The protests were, in a word, embarrassing.

Enter the 1990s, and my last degree, a B.S. in engineering. By the time the century was over I’d crossed the country twice, literally lived in more places than I can remember, and worked every job from dishwasher to senior engineer for a Microsoft outsourcer. The 1990s and beyond also brought new lows in liberalism. Bill Clinton pulled a “Nixon” and lied bold-faced to the American people. He had the gall to flummox the world by questioning the definition of “is” before a grand jury. And even N.O.W. came out in support of Bill after he used Monica as his own personal… Oh you know.

So what went so wrong? After all, JFK had so much of it right. We should,

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

We did address (and continue to address) women’s rights, and civil rights, and all the rest.

In short, what went wrong is that liberalism won back in the 1960s.

But rather than rally with people like Reagan (himself once a democrat) and move forward, liberals chose instead to seek the eternally warm waters of victimization, entitlement, intellectual enlightenment, and atonement. The left has let common sense become the victim of agenda. Some of them actually buy into the idea that the U.S. government was involved in bringing down WTC building number 7. Barack Obama still can’t admit that Petraeus’ “Surge” is working. People still believe in Jesse, Wright, Edwards… Oh never mind… Welcome to the “Oliver Stone” world…

What went wrong with liberalism? Just think of the movie “Requiem for a Heavyweight”… Picture an old fighter, proud, but punch-drunk. Betrayed but willing to make those final absurd gestures out of misplaced loyalty to his venal handler(s). In the end, a pathetic joke. Yeah, that’s what went wrong with liberalism.

Alan Speakman


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 111 other followers