You MIGHT be a PATRIOT If: . .

You MIGHT be a PATRIOT if:

1. You can say the Pledge of Allegiance with pride swelling your chest instead of a queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach and the inate desire to remove the words "under God" from the last part of the final statement.

2. You believe that the FAMILY is the best environment for raising children, not the collective public schools, and that it is the FAMILY that should provide children with a moral, spiritual, and political foundation, not the SCHOOL and certainly not any individual TEACHER.

3. You think the United States Constitution should be READ and not read INTO by those office holders who have sworn the oath to support, protect, and DEFEND that said Constitution, not obliterate it with a series of laws designed solely to achieve or maintain their own political power and prestige.

4. You believe that man's rights come from GOD and Natures and not from any elected legislature, and further that that rights of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS do not include a guarantee that one will BE happy, nor can any GOVERNMENT guarantee one's happiness by the passing of any law.

5. You believe that ones elected legislators are elected to REPRESENT their constituents not to RULE over them, and that a formal education, while necessary in preparing one for certain career pursuits, in no way renders one more intelligent or more entitled to power than one not so formally educated.

6. You believe that the right to vote is sacrosanct and should only be exercised by LIVING, BREATHING American citizens, properly IDENITIFIED as such.

7. You believe that the words "career" and "politician" should never rest together in the same sentence and be used to describe any one man or woman in his or her lifetime. Politicians should be more in the vein of the ancient Roman Cincinnatus, not CAESAR or for a more contemporary example, George Washington who not ONCE, but TWICE voluntarily relinquished power when he could have had absolute power for LIFE, nor Franklin Roosevelt who thought he should be President for LIFE, prompting our elected officials to pass a constitutional amendment ensuring there would be no more such ambitions realized in this country.

8. You believe in American exceptionalism and the power of the individual, and believe that we are citizens of the United States of America, NOT citizens of the WORLD at large.

9. You believe that the individual citizen cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without DUE PROCESS OF LAW, which means following the LAW, not DOING whatever the heck the government wants under COLOR of law.

10. You believe that your freedoms are rights are worth fighting to preserve AT ALL COSTS because like Patrick Henry and our forefathers, we are resolved to live and DIE as free men rather than to submit to slavery and tyranny, even from our OWN GOVERNMENT!

Heil Hitler! Heil Obama! What the Heil is Happening Here??

OK Liberal Democrats. I've really been resisting the urge to compare the modern democratic national socialist agenda with what happened in Germany in the 1930's, but every time I turn around I'm running into liberal propaganda equating George Bush, John McCain or conservative republicans in general with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime. There's an old adage which says that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," but as you persist in throwing rocks in your glass house, I'm just going to illustrate the many ways in which modern liberal democrats are much more in line with Adolph Hitler's Nazi movement than any conservative republican idea could ever be.
To be fair to liberal democrats, I'm not suggesting that liberal democrats want to commit genocide, conquer the world, or commit any of the other horrors typically associated with Nazi Germany. What I'm comparing is the method by which these comparable political ideologies acquired their power and the social, political, and economic environments that made these movement thrive and flourish.
The biggest single element that both German Nazis and American Liberal Socialists have in common is their spokesperson. In Germany, that person was Adolf Hitler. In modern socialist America, it's Barack Obama. What do Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler have in common? The answers might just surprise you. Again, I'm not suggesting that they are one and the same, far from it. But when you look at the two men side by side, and without the emotional disgust and revulsion that one normally associates with the name Adolf Hitler, you can see some similarities between the two men.
Let's start with Adolf Hitler, since the history has largely been written on him. Hitler came from modest means. Hist entire youth and early adulthood were marred by poverty and social ostracism. His father died when he as young, and he was frustrated in his attempts to achieve recognition and success as an artist. He blamed this failure not on his own lack of talent, evident to anyone who has ever seen any of his artwork, but rather on a conspiracy of Jewish professors at the Vienna Art Institute. This belief that he was cheated by this ethnic minority formed the nucleus of his lifelong passionate anti-semitism. Obama was the bi-racial child of a divorced, single mother but even though he did not grow up in poverty, I am relatively certain he suffered some social ostracism as a child.
Hitler migrated to Germany around the time of the outbreak of World War I, so Hitler joined the German Army. He needed a job, and he wanted to ingratiate himself with his adopted country. As a soldier in the German Army, Hitler distinguished himself in combat and rose to the rank of corporal, quite an achievement for a non-German, and was even awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class. It was because of this distinction that Hitler was permitted to remain in the German Army after the mandatory downsizing of the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty restricted the German Army to less than 100,000 personnel. Obama never served in the military or saw combat, but he did engage in public civil service as a community organizer.
As part of his duties following the end of the war, corporal Hitler was assigned by his commanding officer, Captain Ernst Roehm (that's right, the same Ernst Roehm who would later head the Sturmabteilung, the SA brownshirted stormtroopers), to attend political meetings to determine if any of the activities or topics of conversation could be considered subversive or illegal under the new Weimar Republican Constitution. Once such group was the German Worker's Party. Hitler attended a meeting of the German Worker's Party in a beer hall in Munich and what he heard there was a message that extolled the virtues of German ideals, the supremacy of German might, the and the ability of Germany to rise again and take its' place once more among the leaders of the world.
To a fervent nationalist like corporal Adolf Hitler, these words resonated and enthralled the young Hitler so much so that he not only failed to report the group, he actually joined it. When questioned by Captain Roehm about his experiences, he told Roehm that he did not see anything subversive or illegal about the group in that meeting, but that he should attend future meetings to make sure that there was nothing for the government to be concerned about. The next time Hitler attended a meeting of the German Worker's Party, he requested permission to address the meeting. As he was the group's newest member, they were only too happy to have him speak. When he spoke, his spellbinding oratory moved the group to such an extent that membership increased immediately, and Hitler was made the spokesman for the group from that time forward. Obama and the liberal socialists of the democratic party are also strong in the labor movement and enjoy union support. Is it a coincidence that the Nazi party started life as a labor union?
Ironically, Hitler knew that if this group were to become a political force that could achieve any significant political power, there would have to be some changes made. He started with the name of the group, because he understood instinctively that if the party were to achieve any success, it was going to have to appeal to Germans from all social and economic classes and a worker's party implied that the members were blue-collar laborers who carried lunch boxes was pumpernickel sandwiches and warm beer in the thermos. This image was not likely to appeal to the aristocracy, the illuminati, the glitterati, or the professionals he would need to attract to the party.
Germany, unlike France, Russia, and other countries that had experienced revolutions, did not disposess or murder its aristocrats when it became a republic. Even though Germany had been a feudal monarchy prior to World War I, and the ruling Kaiser and his family and court fled the country at the war's end, the German citizenry still had respect and admiration for its' nobility. Many of the heroes of the war were from noble families and Hitler knew he would need the support of men with Von in their names if he were to achieve political power. He also knew he would need to associate himself with academic, political, military, and celebrity personalities to increase his popular appeal. Sound familiar? It wasn't John McCain that was supported by the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg. Then factor in Colin Powell, Bruce Springstein, Kanye West, P-Diddy Combs, etc. and you have a modern comparison.
Regardless of his entourage, Hitler could not achieve any significant political successes until the advent of the Great Depression. It is only in a climate of economic misery and unbridled fear that the message of national socialism sounds even remotely attractive. Hitler used the Depression, the runaway inflation that made it necessary to take a wheelbarrow full of German currency to the bakery to buy a loaf of bread, and the rampant economic unrest to push his message of national pride, hope, and a return to past glories. Sound familiar?
With lines like "Germany forever," and "The German people are the rightful masters of the world," Hitler seduced the German citizens to support him, but even with all of these things going for him, he still couldn't win the power he sought. His newly named National Socialist, or "Nazi" party was gaining seats in the Reichstag, or Germany's congress, but it couldn't claim a majority against the communists, labor unionists, and worse, the democratic republicans who still believed in the viability of the Weimar Republic. Obama ran his campaign with slogans like "Yes we can," "I believe in you," "Our best days are ahead." etc.
Also problematic to Hitler's ambitions was the advocacy of the media against him. Newspapers and radio newscasters were trying to sound the alarm about Hitler and the true intentions of the Nazis. Unfortunately, Hitler had such reserves of cash and celebrity power that he was able to counter and ulitimately stifle and silence his critics. If you examine the ways this was done, you really begin to see some frightening similarities between Hitler's Nazis and modern liberal democratic politics.
First, the Nazis used their popular appeal and celebrity endorsers to boycott and punish by economic means, any newspaper or radio program that spoke negatively about Hitler or the Nazis. Economic assault proved to be very effective, but sometimes even that wasn't enough. When the economic muscle failed, Hitler brought in the stormtroopers, the brown shirted thugs of the SA, to help the misguided writers, editors, or broadcasters see the light. Sometimes this was done by trashing the newspaper offices, destroying the presses, or burning down the building. If that didn't do it, the stormtroopers would kick in the door of a journalist or editor whose writing they didn't like and maybe kick in his teeth, break his arms or some other such violence. If the target were too popular for such brutality, then the Nazis would engage in the politics of personal destruction to silence their critics. This could be accomplished a number of ways, but the most common was to photograph the person talking to a little girl or gay man, and release the photo charging all manner of inappropriate conduct, labeling the man as either a pedophile or a homosexual, effectively marginalizing him and alienating his public followers. He could then be shipped off to a prison or concentration camp with little or no public outcry. The politics or personal destruction. Sound familiar? Just ask Joe Werzelbacher or "Joe the Plumber" as he's more appropriately known. Ask Sarah Palin, if you need another example.
Silencing one's political critics is essential when you're trying to promote an agenda that if it were ever objectively examined would be denounced and defeated. The Nazis systematically removed any and all independent media outlets by passing laws that made it a criminal offense to publish or broadcast anything not approved by the Nazi Party. Sound familiar? The liberal socialists are idealogically aligned with nearly all of the mainstream media, so there are no worries about unfavorable press there. The same is true with most broadcast and cable television channels. The only media the liberal socialists do not control is talk radio and the internet. Talk radio is almost exclusively dominated by popular and therefore powerful conservative spokesmen and the liberal socialists want to silence these critics. Since they have failed to compete in the arena of ideas, they are turning to the same kind of government intervention that the Nazis relied upon, only now it's hypocritically referred to as the "fairness" doctrine. As for the internet, there have been rumblings about laws to require the registration of political websites. While this would seem to fairly apply to all such sites, it effectively draws a bulls eye on the backs of conservative political writers. After all, if we register, then they know where to send the stormtroopers, don't they?
Now, again to be fair, I'm not saying that Obama and the liberal socialist democrats are the Nazis. I'm not suggesting they are even remotely as malevolent, megalomaniacal, or genocidal as the Nazis proved to be. What I AM suggesting, is that there are remarkable and frightening similarities about how they achieved their power, and how they are attempting to keep it. If this last election cycle proved anything, it was that Nazi political tactics are alive and well and currently being used.
For the unbelievers that doubt that today's liberal socialists don't have their stormtroopers, their gestapo, their SS, etc. you would be very wrong. Ever heard of ACORN or SEIU? Those are the modern equivalent of stormtroopers, complete with kooky orange or purple hats and either orange or purple uniform shirts. They are the thugs that strong arm the opposition by breaking into foreclosed homes, registering dead and fraudulent voters, and engaging in other quasi criminal enterprises they dismiss as "civil disobedience" when confronted with their acts. Not surprisingly, there was a federal investigation into the activities of this group before the recent election, but I'm pretty willing to bet that this investigation will either become a whitewash, or will be swept under the rug altogether given the political sympathies of the group and its long history with our own Supreme Community Organizer in Chief. Of course, in true Hitlerian fashion, if his stormtroopers prove to be too big a political embarrassment, there might be another virtual "Night of Long Knives" in which Obama, like Hitler before him, determines it's more politically expedient to throw his stormtroopers under the bus and allow the justice department to prosecute them fully. Hitler used his SS, to arrest and murder the leadership of the Stormtroopers, including his old friend and Commanding Officer Ernest Roehm, when he needed the support of the German Army.
Who then are the modern liberal socialist's version of the SS?  Well, that is a little more subtle a comparison. There are no uniformed, jackbooted, mass murderers in the liberal socialist party that I'm aware of. However, if you visit sites like "the Daily Kos," "The Huffington Post," "Move on.org" or others of this ilk, you begin to see some similarities to the ideological purity espoused by Heinrich Himmler. Though not a racial issue today like it was with the Nazis of history, ideology has replaced race in the modern liberal socialist dogma. Today it is not Jews that are the target of liberal socialist ire, it is the "rich." Ironic when you consider that most of the liberal socialist poster boys and girls are themselves "rich." Still, it is the "rich" that are demonized and attacked by the liberal socialists. But the issue of Race is also alive and well, as the liberal socialists have proved more than once. They are perfectly willing to play the race card and any opportunity and brand anyone that disagrees with them as "racist."
Could today's "rich" end up in concentration camps? Well, read the editorials and blogs that call for the removal from office, and criminal prosecution of the Wall Street Banking and Trading executives that the liberal socialist propagandists blame for today's economic woes. Noticeably absent from the calls for incarceration, are the liberal socialists whose social engineering hubris is equally to blame. I'm not defending the Wall Streeters here. If they violated laws, they should be held accountable. I don't think anyone doubts that Bernie Madoff deserved his fate. There is, however, something fundamentally wrong with the notion that executives who ran a business and achieved economic success for their efforts should be punished for doing the things that have made them successful in the past merely because they were forced to take government money. Still, these executives may well be made scapegoats for the ills of today's society much in the same way the Jews were scapegoated by the Nazis. It is equally disingenuous behavior on the part of the socialist regimes whether in Germany in the 30's or here today.
Now, maybe next time you see an ACORN worker or SEIU Union member on the street in their conspicuous bright orange or purple shirts and hats, give 'em a "Heil." They might just "heil" you back. And now that I've sufficiently degressed myself, I'm getting the "heil" out of here to go do some serious drinking.  On second though, since HITLER first attempted to seize power in a beer hall, I might have to rethink that idea. 'Til we "meet" again.

THIS 70's Show

When I think of the 70's a myriad of images comes to my mind.  On the one hand there's the fashions, like the leisure suit, platform shoes, spread-collared shirts unbuttoned to the waist with layers of gold chains handing down onto hairy chests, the smell of Aqua Velva, Brut, Hai Karate, and other best selling fragrances, etc.   There's also the images of John Travolta in his white polyester suit and black shirt disco dancing across the screen or bopping down the streets of Brooklyn in his leather jacket and long hair, movie s like Jaws, Star Wars, and more.  And who could forget Charlie's Angels and that poster of Farrah Fawcett in the swimsuit?  But, not all the images I recall from the 70's were as good.  I also recall the long lines at gas pumps, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and events like Watergate, The Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis, etc.

I can't decide which images disgust or frighten me more.  There is the image of my parents decked out in the fashions of the day practicing their disco moves in our basement with their friends, or the ones that showed up on the television night after night on ABC's "The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage" which propelled Ted Koppel to stardom and served to create the long running "Nightline" series on ABC News.  There were the conversations about the latest fashion trends, esp the ones that took place at my house when Dad put on his first leisure suit, and the ones I remember about how they were going to pay the bills this month because everything seemed to cost so much more than it had a few short weeks ago.  I remember the discussions about whether my Mom should take extra shifts at the hospital or whether Dad should get a part-time second job.  I also remember my grandparents talking about what became of their money as well, and they were what I considered "rich" at the time.

As you can see, the 70's was not as it is shown in the popular sitcom "That 70's Show."  Sure the hairstyles and clothing are somewhat accurate, but there seems to be no mention of the economic and social malaise that plagued the country from the late 60's until the early 80's.  Notwithstanding the fact the the show at issue is a sitcom, still you would think there would have been some allusion to the realities of that decade.  If I had to guess a reason for these critical omissions, I would imagine it had something to do with the fact that the writers of that show were either not alive or not old enough to really REMEMBER the 70's. 

The same must be true of the writers of textbooks used by middle and high school students today, because I find the same lack of historical accuracy present in those tomes.   But this is not by accident.  After all, if you distort history when teaching it to those too young to have experienced it first hand, eventually those young people will outlive the ones that actually lived the history, so the only recollections to survive will be the distorted ones learned through the schools effectively re-writing and thus changing history.  If those who cannot remember the past are truly condemned to repeat it, then we're in for a nightmare of epic proportions.  

In all the reasearch I've done on the history of the 70's I can find any number of references to Watergate, Nixon, the evil Republicans, the Vietnam War Protests, Kent State, etc.  What is surprisingly absent from these historical references is any mention of the double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, out of control drug and sexual behaviors, the anarchy of groups like The Black Panthers and even The Weather Underground (Bill Ayers, ring a bell?).   Also missing is any suggestion as to the CAUSE of the economic miseries endured throughout the 70's.  It is our own "lost decade" and this fact seems to have been "lost" to the liberal writers of history.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to rely in these libral historians for my recollection.  When the 70's began, I was a student in elementary school.  When they ended, I was graduating high school.  I was too young to get into the discos and lose myself in the cocaine and casual sex of the disco era.  I didn't get my first fake ID card until after I had graduated from high school and was on active duty in the US Navy so I actually REMEMBER the 70's quite well.  I also had the good fortune to take one of the only economics courses in college I was able to stay awake in  from a professor who was so hell bent on discrediting Ronald Reagan's economic policies, that he was forced to look honestly at the economic misery of the 70's and at it's root cause.  That root cause, in a nutshell, was the rampant overspending by the US Government in the 1960s.

Now let's disect that statement a bit because I realize it is a loaded one.   That said, look at what was taking place during the 1960s.  At the beginning of the 60s, Kenendy was President and in the first year of his term we had the Bay of Pigs debacle, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the beginnings of the Vietnam Conflict.  You also had the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, and other such societal changes.  After Kennedy's assasination in 1963,  Lyndon Johnson took over the Presidency and in relatively short order, the conflict in Vietman was escalated to a full blown war, necessitating great increases in spending, and at the same time, you had the creation of the welfare state, ironically referred to as "The Great Society."  Wars are expensive, as we've just had a recent remider of, and social engineering is, likewise, very expensive.

Ironically, it was the latter, the welfare state, that so bloated the federal budget that we were in deep deficit spending before the end of Johnson's first term of office.  The argument for the Great Society was that with the new found freedoms earned as a reasult of the civil rights movement, the US had a duty to help care for and support minorities as they were integrated into our society.  While this sounds good, as most liberal social engineering programs do, it was a LIE.  Lyndon Johnson, like Andrew Johnson (no relation) before him, was a rabid racist.  He did not want minorities integrated into society, but rather wanted to keep them segregated on their side of town without using the "S" word and offending his liberal constituents. 

The whole premise of the welfare state was to say to minority citizens that if they would agree to live where the government told them to, and vote the way the government told them to, that the government would see to it that they would have everything they needed to live comfortably, if not well, and that all they had to do was to behave and stay out of everyone else's way.  Rather than integrating minorities into our society it had just the opposite effect, as most social engineering programs do.  It created a welfare dependent class that contributed nothing but debt, illigitimate children, and drugs to our culture.  This resulted in increases in welfare recipients and the prison population all of which were spiralling out of control until the system was finally reformed by one William Jefferson Clinton.  But the evils of welfare is the subject for a whole different article altogether.

The point of the comparison was that the spending of the 60's was what caused the double digit inflation and unemployment of the 70's.  Now the difference between the spending then, and the spending now is that in 60's we were spending our own money.   We weren't borrowing it from the Chinese or anybody else.  Also, the social security trust fund was still intact and not a Ponzi scheme like it is now.  Add to that, the amount of spending then pales in comparison to the amount of spending now, even after you adjust for inflation, cost of living increases, etc.   If spending our own money caused us to lose a decade, what do you think spending borrowed money will do? 

%o put it in the form a model everyone can relate to, this would be the equivalent of attempting to save money by not paying your monthly bills with your salary, but rather by taking out a credit card for each such bill, paying the bill with the credit card, and making the minimum interst payment on each card every month.  In the beginning you would save money by making only those minimum payments instead of paying the full amount of the bill, but how long would it take for you to max out that card and have the minimum payment ballon to where it exceeded your regulary monthly bill payment?  Now imagine doing that for every bill you have each month.  Eventually the minimum payments would exceed your bills, your cards would be maxed out, and the bills would keep on coming.  No one in their right mind would do that, would they?

Well, you might think that, but in my 10 plus years working as a bankruptcy paralegal I saw exactly that same scenario over and over again.  This is exactly what our own government is doing as we speak.  If spending REAL money caused us to lose a decade, imagine what we're looking at with what's happening today? 

Every time I hear some politician or political pundit talking about today's economy being the worst since the Great Depression, I want to scream at my TV "What about the 70's you Moron?" Sometimes I even DO, because most the politicians and pundits ARE old enough to have some memories of that "lost" decade, even if they were too busy doing coke and having rampant casual sex in the local disco to remember ALL of it.    But for those of whose only reference to the 70's is the sitcom "That 70's Show," or the distortions of liberal historians, THIS 70's show is not going to be a sitcom and it's going to last a lot longer than half an hour.

Thanks in no small part to this admininistration's unrealistic attitudes towards the production of domestic energy, we're likely to see a repeat of another familiar icon from the 1969s. I remember very well the long lines at the local gas station or the sign "Sorry, Out of Gas" that appeared at the most inopportune of times.  Like it or not, gasoline is the life blood of this country and as long as alternative energy is not in our foreseeable fugure, we're going to have to provide the oil we need domestically which would help solve the unemployment problem to some extent, pr we're going to have to continue to transfer massive asmounts of our wealth to nations that do not have our best interests at heart.  We can no more stop using gasoline than we can stop using oxygen and if you think the French went wild over lack of bread, wait til you see Americans without affordable gasoline or other energy.   Exploiting the tragedy of the gulf  rig explosion  to artificially reduce the supply and increase the cost of energy to the average citizen is reprehensible at best. Likewise, closing down offshore oil rigs will only lose many more jobs, result in the rigs being dismantled and taken to a more user friendly location, and the oil that should be ours will be lost to the Chinese now drilling off the cuban coast in SHALLOW waters.  Where's the sense in any of THAT?

Unlike the REAL 70's which we got through in discos, snorting coke, and boffing our brains out with any partner that would stand still and let us, this generation is not going to have such pleasant diversions.   But, for the benefit of those that missed the original "lost decade", thanks to our failed war on drugs, the coke supply is still up to meeting the demand, and thanks to liberal social engineering in our schools, casusal sex is as plentiful today as it was then.  Finally, thanks to "Mama Mia" you can still hear ABBA on the radio, in FM stereo instead of AM mono this time. Who says you can't improve on an original?

The French Revolution: Not So Long Ago and Not So Far Away.

Lately there have been many comparisons made of current events with troubling historical events such as Ancient Roman times, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, or any number of historical events in which a supposedly civilized society lost its conscience or sense of morality. No historical event illustrates this more than the French Revolution. While it began with the noblest of motives, it quickly degenerated into one of the bloodiest and most reprehensible events in human history. Sadly, what’s happening in our modern and enlightened society seems to bring to mind events that transpired in France in the year 1789.

Then as now, the people were taxed mercilessly by a government that was all about
rewarding the privileged few at the expense of the majority of the population. In 1789 France, this privileged few were the aristocrats that ruled France. The taxes that supported their lavish lifestyles were borne by the majority of citizens that did not enjoy these lifestyles, nor could they enjoy much of the fruits of their own labors as most of what they earned was confiscated by tax collectors. Add to that, the national economy was in shambles due to rampant overspending by the King and the ruling classes in supporting not only their lavish lifestyles, but also in supporting and funding our own revolutionary war against Great Britain.

Then, as now, reports of lavish lifestyles and wasteful spending by the privileged
aristocracy angered and enraged the population. While they starved in the streets, the Royals and aristocrats lived well, dined gluttonously, spent lavishly, and average citizens were paying for it with their taxes. Add to that frustration, a famine that devastated the country’s grain crop resulting in extremely inflated prices for the most basic staple of the common french man’s diet, bread, and you have a powder keg of pent up rage and frustration ready to blow. That’s exactly what happened on July 14, 1789 when the enraged citizens of Paris stormed the Bastille prison fortress, overpowered the few guards on the premises, slaughtered them and the governor of the prison, freed the prisoners, and demolished the structure with their bare hands.

To be fair, the French Revolution started out like ours did, with noble intentions to make life better for all French citizens, not just the privileged few in the aristocracy or clergy. When the French Assembly convened in the tennis courts of Versailles and took the now famous “tennis courts oath” resolving not to disband until France had a Constitution and Bill of Rights of its own, they could not have foreseen the carnage that was to follow in the name of the new France. Likewise, they could not know that their experiment with liberty, equality and fraternity would end in utter failure, and with a return to oppressive dictatorship under a gent named Napoleon Bonaparte. If they had, maybe the whole revolution would not have taken place, for who in their right mind would consent to such bloodshed and brutality if there were nothing to be gained on the other side of it?

How then did the noble experiment spin so wildly out of control and become the horror
show we know today as “The French Revolution?” The answer is not a simple one, but
it can be explained as follows: A select cabal of elitist ideologues seized control of a country from the elected legislature by creating a climate of crisis, fear, panic, and blind anger and used the “will of the people” excuse to justify tyrannical behavior. This same elitist cabal then used a complicit media to keep the people in a frenzied “lynch-mob state” and used that mob to enforce its will on an entire population. Sound familiar? It should because it’s happening right in front of our very eyes. Thankfully, we haven’t yet regressed to the mob violence or the class genocide, but we’re moving in that direction at a frightening pace.

In eighteenth century France, the populace driver was an underground newspaper
called ironically enough, “L’Amie de Peuple” (translation: The Friend of the People).
This paper was run by a professional malcontent by the name of Jean Paul Marat. Mr.
Marat had been living in the sewers of Paris before the revolution as he had failed at every commercial endeavor he had undertaken. To be fair, it wasn’t always possible to rise on one’s own merit in the feudalistic social order of pre-revolutionary France, but this man was nothing more than an angry, hate-filled, zealot who saw his opportunity for personal power and glory in the climate of the revolution. He was like the Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken of his day and he rose to national pre-eminence like Andy Griffith’s character in “A Face In The Crowd.”

He used his new found power to wreak havoc on the french population. His rants
resulted in multiple acts of barbarism, including murder, rape, pillage, and other crimes which would have met with severe punishment in a civilized, law abiding society. His word alone was enough to send hundreds of innocent people to the guillotine. As a direct result of one of his rants, the citizens of Paris raided a french prison where there were prisoners awaiting their so-called “trials” and executions, and basically committed wholesale rape, robbery, torture, and murder in the name of the revolution. Ironically, the barbarism was conducted in a large cell that had a mural of “The Rights of Man” as codified by the French Assembly at the beginning of the revolution. As if in homage to the term “poetic justice,” Marat was murdered by a woman who concluded that the country she loved would be better off without him. She paid for her crime gladly, and today she’s considered a hero in France. Her name is Charlotte Corday.

Contrast that to the way the modern media, both the so-called “legitimate” press, and
the less revered blogosphere has been ginning up anger and hatred against the
executives and employees of AIG. I remember just a few short years ago that AIG ran
an ad campaign touting themselves as “the biggest insurance company in the world you
never heard of.” In many ways, I wish that were still a true statement. How then do a
bunch of homeless, disheveled malcontents end up protesting on the front lawns of AIG
executives’ homes in Connecticut? Answer, the media, in conjunction with self-serving
politicians, ginned up a mob mentality that not only led to such protests in the streets, but also empowered unscrupulous congressmen to pass a law designed solely to
confiscate wealth. This law is a violation of the very Constitution they took an oath to support, but they were bolstered in this effort by the lynch mob mentality that boosts its’ approval ratings (albeit temporarily), and if the law is later struck down as unconstitutional, they can tell the voters that it’s not their fault.

This makes the very real (unfortunately) Barney Frank more like the character of
Madame DeFarge from Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities.” He sits at the foot of
the guillotine knitting while his victims lose their heads and complains when the mob
makes too much noise causing him to drop a stitch messing up his knitting. Never mind
he is one of the causes of this misery, he’s’ only TOO happy to lead the charge against those he can point the finger of blame towards keeping it away from himself and othersof his ilk.

The bloodiest carnage of the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, was the brainchild of an Avatar class of elitists led by Maximilian Robespierre, and they had the audacity to call themselves “The Committee for Public Safety.” Using the pretexts of a looming war with other European monarchies, together with the economic crisis that was threatening to topple the fragile government, these committee members effectively suspended the new constitution and took absolute power unto themselves, ostensibly just until the crises had abated. Ironically, this committee saw to it that most of its former colleagues in the full assembly were declared enemies of the new republic and sent them straight to the guillotine. In point of fact, very few of the men that took the “Tennis Court Oaths” lived to see the government they had envisioned become a reality.

I would hate to have been one of those French politicians that had to stroll the streets of downtown Paris and see all the blood soaked into the street stones from the guillotine scaffold only to realize that he was responsible for that. I would hate to have a been a French politician that had to look into the faces of children in the orphanage in Paris and realize that he was responsible for making those children orphans.

So maybe you politicians in Washington can take a lesson from what happened in
France those many years ago. When you pander to the mob, you empower and
unleash that mob, and then you bear responsibility for the consequences of that
decision and of the mob’s actions. A mob is not a sentient body. It does not think, it does not reason, it runs on pure unadulterated emotion, usually anger or fear. Once unleashed it cannot be controlled effectively and very often turns against those who unleashed it in the first place. Such was the case in the French Revolution. Every member of the Committee for Public Safety met an unnatural end, most on the
guillotine to which they had consigned so many others.

Likewise, the members of the media, both the “legitimate” press, and the blogosphere
might want to consider their responsibilities as well. It’s easy to spew venom and vitriol from the virtual safety of the internet and then disavow all responsibility for what ensues. But just as we enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech (for now, anyway), we also have a responsibility to use that speech judiciously. We cannot legally scream “Fire” in a crowded theater and escape the consequences of that action. Yet that is what many so-called journalists and bloggers do every day. What happens when the wife or child of one of these AIG executives gets hurt by a protestor? Even if the harm is not intended, how are we going to feel if it happens? I would like to think we’re all human enough to say that we would feel terrible if someone actually got hurt. If that is the case, then we need to think before we write. If that is not the case, then keep doing what you’re doing and cheer loudly when the guillotine gets erected in Times Square.

Is There Anything Fair about the "Fairness" Doctrine?

Like so many other government ideas, the "fairness" doctrine is a deliberate misnomer.  The innocuous sounding words totally obfuscate and distract the reader from their true meaning.  If the "fairness" doctrine lived up to its' name, it wouldn't be such a bad thing because fundamentally we're all for fairness and equality, or so the politically correct among us would have us believe.

The problem is that if the "fairness" doctrine were what it purported to be and were "fairly" and bi-laterally applied, it really would improve the balance of ideologies because it would actually give conservatives more of a voice in the traditional network and cable television media, which are now predominantly sources for liberal propaganda as opposed to honest and accurate journalism.,

If there were anything "fair" about the fairness doctrine, you would see liberal idealogues like Chris Matthew of MSNBC paired with a conservative bloviator like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity.  In fact, every mainstream news or political program on every other station than Fox would actually be "fair and balanced" for a change. That is how we can know that there is nothing "fair" about the fairness doctrine.  If there were, conservatives would be for it and liberals would be howling against it.

As things now stand, the liberals are championing the "fairness' doctine because they see it as a vehicle with with the either censor, or better still, eliminate the one platform that conservatives have to voice their opposition to the liberal steamroling of everything conservatives believe in and support.  The talk radio format is predominantly conservative because if you really listen to the liberal talk radio programs, they are nothing more than angry diatribes by failed and frustrated actors and comedians and their content is nothing more than "Bush is bad."  Who in their right mind is going to listen to hours of that?

Consequently, liberal talk radio shows have been commercially unsuccessful.  This is the free market place judging the quality of the product, NOT the political censorship claimed by the left.  But like most liberals, the leftist idealogues cannot accept that it is their PRODUCT that is defective so they run to the government and/or the courts to give them a "bailout."  Rather than improve their product and put on programming th

So onceat's actually entertaining, they prefer instead to have the government force their square pegs into our round holes with the force of a mallet.

If this is allowed to occur, radio stations that carry programs like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. will be forced to give similar time allotments to people like Al Franken (if he's not too busy screwing up in the senate to keep screwing up on the radio), Janeane Garafalo, Randy Rhodes, etc.  Whle some liberal entertainers are able to put on an entertaining and comercially successful program, the number of liberal radio failures far outweigh the successes.  The only successful liberal radio hosts I can think of are Don Imus and Stephanie Miller, both of whom I actually enjoy listening to.

What the liberals don't seem to get is that no one likes to listen to angry diatribes when they're driving in their cars or sitting in their homes.  If liberal radio programs would focus on entertaining as well as bloviating negativity, they might find a receptive audience somewhere.  Rush Limbaugh gets accused of being an angry man all the time, but if you actually listen to what he says, his message is very positive, not unlike the messages of Barack Obama, at least BEFORE he was elected.  But once again the libs show their true colors and their distrust is not disdain for the free market and the judgment of the American Public.  They would rather have the government force their excruciatingly dull and unpleasant diatribes down our throats than to follow the lead of shows like Saturday Night Live and add some decent content to entertain their audiences inbetween the torture sessions that liberal talk can be equated to.

If this "fairness" doctrine passes, the radio stations will be forced to air these ratings duds and will be hard-pressed to find advertisers willing to pay to run their ads in the time slots when no one is listening.  This is because despite their best efforts to force their programming on us, we the listening public still have the right to vote with our radio dials and the off switches.  They can lead us to their brackish water, but they can't make us drink it and the advertisers know this.  This is why Air America failed as a commercial enterprise and all other such programs devoid of any entertainment content will do likewise.  What this means is that radio stations will be giving advertisement time on liberal talk radio shows free with a gallon of gas.  

What's next for the socialist left?  If they succeed in putting radio stations out of business, will they then come after the internet?  Considering so much of their message and support is due to the internet, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they try to do so.  Of course, considering liberals are famous for forming "circular firing squads" when they attempt to do anything, we can only hope.

If the "fairness" doctrine were really fair and the net result of it would be more shows like "Hannity & Colmes," I would be the first in line to sign a petition in favor of it.  As much as I disagree politically with Alan Colmes, the ping-pong effect between him and Sean Hannity and the rigorous questioning and rehabiliting of guests that were either liberal or conservative by a moderator of the opposite political ideology was a good thing.  If we can't have civil but spirited political debate in this country, we really are in the last days of the great experiment known as the United States of America.  I pray this is not the case. Won't you pray with me?

Defending Denise Richards

I wish I had a dime for every time one of my friends said I should write an op-ed column or get my own talk radio show. The problem with those things is that on becomes dependent on others for the success or failure of such enterprises. With this method of communication public support is not necessary for an outspoken individual such as myself to find an outlet for the myriad of thoughts buzzing around in my cerebral cortex. When I informed my friends that I had decided to enter the blogosphere with my ideas they were enthusiastic as supportive. When asked what my inaugural tupoc would be, their enthusiasm waned. When I asked why that should be the response was something along the lines of, "With all the things going on in this country and the world, why on earth would you want to write about a minor celebrity?For the answer to this question I go back to my most recent visit to the local hair stylists and something I overheard while waiting to get my monthly mane taming. As I sat in the waiting area reading an old issue of Time magazine perusing an article about the lack of scientific evidence regarding the liberals three card monty issue of global warming I overheard a rather heated exchange among the other ladies in the waiting area. Although I was trying to tune out the conversation, I kept hearing angry words like "bitch", "slut&", "hussy" and several other unflattering epithets. Ignoring my own inner voice and against all my better judgment I asked the woman next to me who is was that they were referring to. She replied in what could only be described as a hissing sound that the subject of the conversation was Denise Richards.

Fortuately for me I was called by my stylist so there was no opportunity to get further involved in the discussion that could only be described as if the Harpies of mythology were ripping a poor unfortunate mortal to shreds before my very eyes. On the way to my destination I noticed a tabloid paper showing an article about the never ending saga that is Ms. Richards divorce from another tabloid favorite, hollywood bad-boy Charlie Sheen. That explained what started these ladies gossipping on this particular topic, but could not explain the seething hatred that these otherwise normal women were expressing. You would think Ms. Richards had run over their pet chihuahuas the way they were acting. What is it about Denise Richards that would turn four ordinary small town women into the harpies of old?

This question occupied my thoughts as I ambled home after my appointment and the only answer I could come up with came from an eposiode of Boston Legal in which the term "schaddenfreude" was defined. Schaddenfreude comes from two german words which separately mean "damage' and "joy." It is the term used to define the tendency of people to enjoy the misery of those who would otherwise be considered better off than themselves. This is especially true is the subject of the misery is pertty, popular, or rich as we love to demonize anyone who has it better than we do.

The other thing that got my attention was that these ladies were reacting to a tabloid story as if it were gospel truth. This is disconcerting to me because tabloid newspapers have always been suspect when it comes to the veracity of the stories they print. Tabloid newspapers typically pay for their information, and they are not known for doing much in the way of research when reporting their stories. What is most disconcerting to me is that the so-called "legitimate press is doing pretty much the same thing these days. What does it say when the purported flagship of journalistic integrity and ethics like the New York Times publishes a story about John McCain based on evidence that would not even be considered in a court of law because of the hearsay rules and totally ignores a story about John Edwards that is more or less bulletproof allowing a tabloid newspaper to scoop them? It says to me that if I want to know the truth of anything I have to do my own research.

Anyone that has gone to college knows that research is work, so why would anyone undertake such work on behalf of Denise Richards. The answer is simple when you take into account that this writer can be considered a knight in rusty aluminum foil. I have never been able to resist riding to the rescue of a damsel in distress This character anomoly has gotten me in trouble on more than one occasion so why should this be any different. That said, trying to find positive press on Denise Richards is like trying to find positive press on a Republican these days. It is next to impossible.

I'm sure Ms. Richards and her publicists experienced the same level of frustration in trying to get her side of the story to the teeming masses which probably accounts for her doing a reality show to try and present her side of things. Thank goodness the tabloid press has created a built-in market to ensure ratings for such a show or the E network might not have green lighted the project. Were it not for my desire to get to the truth of things, I probably would not have watched a single episode, but seeing as there was no other way to hear Denise Richards' side of things I had to tune in.

Here's where things get dicey because I have to live with the fact that I have lost four hours of my life I will never get back in following up on this idea. That said, I am not here to function as a television or entertainment critic. What I wanted to do was observe Ms. Richards in a way that I would not have been able to absent running the risk of a conviction for stalking or a change of career to becoming a paparrazo. Thankfully this was not necessary because thanks to the largesse of the E entertainment network I was able to join America and the world as a video voyeur.

What I observed about Ms. Richards more than anything is that she appears to have gotten a bad rap from just about everone. I did not see a diva, a bitch, a whore, a talentless hack, or any of the other unlattering apellations assigned to her by the tabloid press or the ladies of the hair salon. What I saw was a caring mother and a loving daughter, sister, and friend. That said, I am alo well aware that just because a show is called "realty TV" it is anything but. I know that even an unscripted show is produced and edited to highlight the things the producers and "stars" want you to see.

Notwithstanding the obvious purpose of the show, it can safety be said that Ms. Richards will never give actresses like Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, or any other academy award winner anything to worry about. Consequently it can be said that with Ms. Richards what you see is what you get. If she can't act, she can't be fake. She may never be a candidate for sainthood, but I did not see anything in her to justify the vitriolic reaction I observed from the ladies at the hair salon. Of course, the ladies in the hair salon would not have reacted as they did had Ms. Richards been given a fair shake in the press so I guess that is where the fault truly lies.

To illustrate this point I refer to a number of critics who opined that Ms. Richards would use her show as a platform for bashing her ex husband and promote herself for her career. There were also charges that she might be an unfit mother for exploiting her children in her show. This point was raised against her repeatedly in interviews on daytime shows like "Good Morning America," "Regis and Kelly," and "The View." As much as I love to disagree with the ladies of "The View," the truth of the matter is that in the four episiodes of her show that I watched, the only time I saw her children was when they ran into a camera show to be with their mother or grandfather. This is hardly the exploitation railed against by the talk show mavens. Even after seeing these four episodes, I would not be able to recognize either girl publicly if they were not in the company of Denise or her father. 

As to the issue of Charlie bashing, the only reference I noted to the tabloid bad-boy was a comment made about the removal of his name from a tattoo and the appropriate comment of "bye bye Charlie" that accompanied the deed. This is further eBvidence that Ms. Richards is a concerned mother and does not want to affect the girls relationship with their father by bashing him publicly.

Before I made it my mission to find out about Denise Richards, my only thoughts about her were as the girl in the pool with Neve Campbell in "Wild Things," Dr. Christmas Jones from 'The World is Not Enough," the cousin with the hair from "Friends,"or the pageant contestant from "Drop Dead Gorgeous," a term which is still appropriate in describing the appearance of Ms. Richards to the naked eye. Since looking to get to know the person behind the hype I've discovered the mother, the daughter, the friend, the cool aunt, the animal lover, and the reuctant blind date. If this exercise has taught me anything, it's that we all have different sides to our personality and that you have to take people as YOU find them, not how someone else tells you they are.

In closing I just want to say to Denise Richards that I found her to be an interesting person, much more so than I would have originally thought. I guess this accounts for her celebrity and it is NOT undeserved. Yes she was born with good genes, but she also works to maintain her greatest assets Though she may never win an oscar, I have to agree with Ron Silver that she has a talent for comedy and should be able to succeed in a television sitcom if given that opportunity. Lastly, how can you hate a girl that can agree to a "white trash weekend" and be such a good sport about everything. I can't but then again I'm a guy. Ironically after they read this, some of my friends may express doubts about the truth of that last statement.

If I had the opportunity to say anything to Denise Richards herself, it would be that,as one Illinoisian to another, I got your back. I wish you continued success and happiness and I'm looking forward to your debut on "Dancing With The Stars. I'm also looking forward to more television in future, next time with some quality writing to support you. I would also say that I'm proud of hte way you handled yourself in the variety of situations I observed and especially the eay you handled your former assistant. You showed a remarkable restraint in not firing him a lot sooner. Personally I would have canned him before hiring an assistant to help him do his job, but that's me. I'm also happy you have a good family and friends as well as a thick skin to help you cope with everything you have to deal with. Lord knows I couldn't do it without going postal on someone. You must be a better person than most want to give you credit for.

So live your live, love your family and friends, date more ordinary guys as they get less negative press than the hollywood types, and don't make the mistake of thinking a guy might be gay if he doesn't mention your steamy threesome on a firest date. Some of us are actually nice guys that would rather get to know the real you than focus on the roles you've played in the movies. If you think about it logically, that would be the equivalent of a date handing you his issue of Playboy with your picture on the cover for you to autograph. Trust me when I say that we all have them, and were all well aware of the scenes in Wild Things," but some of us know better than to use those things to try to make a good impression on you, or at least I HOPE we would.

Finally, best wishes for success as you dance with the stars. I'm sure you'll do your fellow Illinosians proud.

Greetings to my fellow Purlple People

Welcome to the Purple People Periodical.  I created this site for people like me who are neither the fire enigine red of the far right, nor the midnight blue of the far left.  If I've learned one thing from this past election cycle, it is that most people (and by most I mean more than half) are somewhere inbetween.  As we learned in elementary school art class, primary colors combine to form secondary colors and when you combine the primary colors of red and blue, you get some shade of purple.  In that most Americans are not the extreme idealogues such as those on the far left and the far right, we fall somewhere inbetween those two extremes.

To illustrate my point, I offer myself.  I am politically conservative.  I believe in a strong national defense, including securing our borders and knowing who is in this country.  I also favor free market capitalism, freedom of religion (including the right to celebrate the Christmas Holiday), and some semblance of morality in my fellow human beings.  So far I'm sounding like a garden variety conservative, but like most people, I have more than one facet to my personality.  My liberal twin side is in favor of gay marriage.  Will someone PLEASE explain to me how my marriage, your marriage, or any body else's marriage is the least bit affected by a gay couple three doors down being married.  And, if it is, how is that THEIR problem:?  Do I have other flaws according to my fellow conservatives?  The answer would be a resounding "YES" because I'm also in favor of keeping abortion a legal option in this country.  I don't ever want to lose another woman's life because she was forced to get her proceducre at a back alley midwife or worse perform her own with a coat hanger or a knitting needle.  I have lost members of my family in this manner and don't wish to lose anyone else.

There are many other purple people out there.  You might be surprised to learn their identities.,  I've no wish to out anyone, but the following purple people are public figures and so their belifs are known to all.  I would like to nominate the following to the purple people hall of fame.  The nominees are: Bill O'Reilly, Whoopi Goldberg, Arnold Schwarznegger, John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, and last but not least, Hillary Clinton.  Now if I were an omniciscent diety I would be able to hear all the horrific gasps and questions forming in your minds about the preceding list.  How, you may ask, can these people from such opposing political backgrounds, have anything in common enough to make them purple people?  To set your minds at ease, let me explain in choice in greater detail.  There are many other candidates I could have named, but the ones Ive chose seem to represent a fair cross section of celebrity choices sufficent to illustrate the principle.

My first choice, Bill O'Reilly, was chose because, contrary to popular opinion, Bill O'Reilly is not a far right kind of guy.  He is conservative in his political beliefs in the same way I am, but he is also an avid proponent of social justice, fairness, and he wants all people to experience the best life has to offer.  He is a bloviator to be sure, but if you are straight with him, even if he disagrees with you, he will be fair to you.  If you dobt this, just ask Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

My second choice is Whoopi Goldberg.  Ms. Goldberg is politically liberal but she is a purple person because in her own words, she owns guns and she's in favor of abortion.  She belives in religious freedom, civil rights, equal justice under law, etc.   While not a regular viewer of "The View", I am fortunate to catch excerpts from it on programs such as "The O'Reilly Factor," "Hannity," "Red Eye", and other programs such as "E News Daily," The Daily 10," and "Entertainment Tonight."  Like Bill O'Reilly she will defend her position , but she also gives her guests a chance to state theirs and is willing to extend them the simple courtesey of not interrupting or belittling them as they do so. And who could forget Whoopi's performance in "Jumpin' Jack Flash?"  I'll never forget her saying, "I'm a little black woman in a big silver box." That particular line is irrelevant to this subject matter, but in unlikely event she ever reads this, I wanted to let her know how I felt about that performance.

The last names on that list are all pretty obvious s to why they were included here.  For one thing, they are all politicians,  As for Arnold Schwarznegger, hes a Republican governing a very liberal state.  He's also married to a liberal Democrat.  You have to be purple to live and govern under those conditions.  John McCain and Joe Lieberman are another classic odd couple, albeit only in political terms.  Senator Lieberman broke with his party to support John McCain in his presidential candidacy because he was more loyal to his friend than to the idealogy of his party.  As for John McCain, how many times has he crossed the aisle to the consternation of his fellow Republicns?  But, like him or hate him, you have to respect him.  Not only did he stay true to his principles during a blistering campaign, but he remained genial and respectful towards President Obama throughout the entire campaign.  How can you not respect a man who used some of his limited campaign warchest to broadcast a commercial congratulating his opponent on his historic nomination?  As for Hillary Clinton, she supported President Bush after September 11, 2001, she also voted for the Patriot Act, and the surge of troops that made victory in Iraq a likely outcome.  She has also shown herself to be strong on national defense, and willing to cross the aisle to work with republicans, albeit  mostly moderate ones.  

 

Now that I've given you this glimpse into my mind and character, I hope you'll come back for more because there is lots more where this came from.