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