Lacy vs. Russ??

Lacy Clay versus Russ Carnahan.

Think about a primary like that for a minute.  Lacy vs. Russ.  If the boundaries stay the same, we may well see this primary run off.  Political speculation says it is going to happen.  So ask yourself, which one of these two would be easier to beat.  Which one of these two would be better for MO 1st district.

This is a tough one.  Both of these two come from MO political families and both have deep contribution ties in the area.  The interesting thing is, many of the trade unions and companies that donate to Lacy also donate to Russ.  So, political donations will be split between the two.

So, let's make some assumptions here, shall we.  If the first district Democratic candidates are Lacy and Russ, the financial contributions will probably be about equal, so that is a wash.  Lacy will probably take north St. Louis City and the surrounding counties, while Russ would take south St. Louis city and areas like Bridgeton, Maryland Heights, Florissant and Hazelwood.  Looking at a rough voter turnout from the past few years and making that assumption, it could be a wash in a primary vote.

What's your point here, you may be asking.  Well, I am going to ask each of you to sit down and take a deep breath.  Now ask yourself, who would be better for first district, Russ or Lacy.  Do you go with the devil we know or the devil we don't know.  Russ may look weaker than Lacy based off of the last election, but the vote was close due to a strong showing in Jefferson County and south St. Louis County.  Russ firmly held Democratic leaning districts.  If this campaign does come to pass, it may be up to the Libertarians and Republicans to help decide this primary election.

Are you ready to vote Democrat for the next primary?  While this is no slam against Robin or Martin, getting rid of Lacy may be our best hope for removing the scum that is Lacy Clay.  This year, the odds are already against a non Democrat winning that seat.  The best way to win this seat back for the people is to play the long game and use strategy on our side.  Get rid of Lacy and get someone like a Russ who is more pliable.  Use his more moderate leanings in some areas to our advantage.  Then, when the timing is right, he can be removed from office.

If this primary campaign comes to pass, the DNC will probably favor Lacy due to his involvement with the Congressional Black Caucus and because he is the incumbent for that district.  By voting for Russ in the primary, we are helping to ensure that Lacy does not get another shot at 2 years in office.

Some of you will balk at this idea and say that we should be above that.  To that let me say this.  Sometimes you have to play dirty to win.  There is nothing illegal or wrong with what I am advocating.  All you are doing, when you go into the polling place is saying you want a Democratic ticket.  That is all.

If you agree or disagree with me, I would love to hear your thoughts and comments.

Post Election Thoughts

Tuesday night's election brought both joy and sorrow. I am very happy with the tsunami of Republicans that have won. With the support of Tea Party patriots, we have seen several candidates win and send packing many Congressman and Senators that needed to be sent home. I especially was happy with the wins by Rand Paul, Marco Rubio ,Pat Toomey and several other House gains. I was also very happy with the pickups in the Senate and the Governor races. More on the governor races in a bit.

I was also saddened by several things, probably most specifically the loss of Robyn Hamlin and Bill Corrigan. My wife and I are both big supporters of these two politicians. North County and St. Louis County saw fit to support the status quo instead of riding the wave of change. I expect that the union vote really helped Dooley and Clay. While Ed Martin is contesting his race with Russ Carnahan, I am also saddened with the voting issues that we saw in the third district. The issues that occurred statewide and the convenience of the additional votes appearing out of the city are truly suspect. It will be interesting to see what occurs once the vote is counted and completed.

As I write this after a long night I am listening to a replay of Obama's conference this afternoon. He takes little blame for what happened last night and he sputters a feeble attempt at an olive branch to the GOP. He refuses to admit that his administration's overreach is the reason for last nights large GOP gains. If this is what we are to expect over the next few years, it will make for a very interesting two years.

The elections are now, for the most part, over. Let's all take a breath and survey the surroundings. Let's truly look at what's ahead. There are a lot of things to consider now, including:

• Nancy Pelosi and the older house reps - There are indicators that many of the older House Dems will not look at retiring since the Dems lost so handily. Many of them do not want to go back to being the minority. These departures will lead to openings in the House. How will these openings change the dynamic.
  
• The census - The census will greatly effect the makeup of the house. As I discussed in THIS post and THIS one, the census will change the lay of the land. Missouri will probably lose a house seat as will a couple of other states.
  
• The governors races - Governors can help set the political tone of each state. The GOP wins in these races will dramatically help Republican causes. These governors will also help set the new lines for House districts as part of the upcoming redistricting.


• The legislative agenda - What will the House and Senate have as their legislative agenda. With Reid probably retaining leadership in the Senate and Boehner probably taking over the House, there are going to be two different and possibly competing agendas.

The next two years cannot be carte blanche no. Boehner cannot try and legislate from the House. Instead, the Republicans need to push for plans that lower taxes and create smaller government. I think everyone will agree that limited compromise is totally acceptable, but the Republicans cannot be obstructionists, otherwise they will get ousted in two years. If Senate Democrats and the President insist on not compromising or pushing a far left agenda, while the GOP lead House offers compromise and moderation, 2010 will be a warm up act for 2012.

Much like Boehner, Rubio and Paul all said last night, this was not an endorsement of the GOP, this was a call to action and a mandate against the president, Pelosi and Reid. I think Jamie Allman says it best, we are not married to you guys, we are just dating. We will see what happens from here on out. You better not disappoint us.

The two pet projects I would like to see addressed are some gerrymandering restrictions and Congressional and Senate term limits. I will be posting more on that in the future, but DSM over at Reboot Congress has written volumes on term limits and I suggest you take a look.

For Robyn Hamling and my fellow Robyn Hamlin supporters I say this, you put up a very valiant fight. It was a fight that many people have tried to wage. All of you spent countless man hours working the phones, going door to door and educating the public. Robyn had all of the right answers for a public group that just did not care. For some, this Congressional race was just about race. For others, it was about supporting the union machine that Lacy regularly supports. Just take a look at Lacy's FEC filings and you can see the amount of money the unions poured into his campaign. He helps them out by pushing through government spending for Boeing, the Federal Government and other big union shops. This loss was probably a combination of the right candidate at the wrong time. I do take some solace that Lacy got less than 75% of the votes. This district has been gerrymandered to the point where winning would be tough for just about anyone without a D behind their name. Robyn and her team worked hard and were able to accomplish a lot. I hope that this can be the stepping stone for bigger things in 2012. Even though we did not get a win, we can continue to work with the St. Louis Tea Party and other local candidates and representatives to make North County and North City a better place. For all you have done, though, I say thank you and good job.

Thoughts on Healthcare

Several months ago, I blogged that the federal government did not have a right to require healthcare. To revisit that post, click here.


I was happy to hear that both Idaho and Virginia both passed legislation barring the federal government from forcing healthcare on its citiczens. It will be interesting to see how many more states stand up and do the same thing.

Last night, after the disasterous vote, my wife and I were talking about it over a cup of coffee. I am still of the belief that this will go to the Supreme Court and be marked as unconstitutional on the basis that it is overriding states sovereign rights. My wife is much more cynical and thinks there will be a lot of backroom deals to save healthcare.

Then my wife said something and I think it is so true and probably something that has been in the back of my mind for quite some time.
"This whole thing is not about healthcare. This is about Obama and his need for some sort of legacy. That is why he did not care what procedures they used or what payoffs were in the bill. He has a need for a legacy and he does not care what it takes."

To put this in context, my wife is not political. She cares for the country and votes every election cycle, but she does not follow this stuff like I do. It frustrates her. She would just assume read a book or watch 30 Rock than talk about or watch political news. I on the other hand could watch C-Span.

It got me thinking. If my non political wife gets it, does the rest of the public? If so, will they show up in the polls in 2010 and 2012?

There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered and frankly, I do not know anymore what will happen. But there are some things that you can do. Contact your state rep and senator and tell them you want a healtchare freedom act, similar to Idaho's. Push the states to declare themselves free of this atrocity. If enough states get on board, the Supreme Court will have to hear us.

The Importance of the 2010 Census

A few weeks ago I wrote an entry on the 2010 Census and the importance of this census. As you are probably aware, Lacy Clay and most of the Democrats are pushing to allow illegal immigrants to be counted towards the census and how it defines representation in the United States. Senator David Vitter attempted to add an amendment which would require all respondents announce their citizenship status.

I then saw that Lacy Clay was adamant that this amendment not pass and wondered why. As I always do, I began investigating this and what I found floored me. What I am going to talk about here is a lot of educated speculation and leans on multiple sources here, so come along with me if you will.

Based upon current population models, it looks like Missouri will lose a representative. Now, this is where the state politics of this get interesting. If Missouri loses a representative in the house, the state legislature and governor will redistrict the state. If you look at the state government, you have a GOP controlled House and Senate and a Dem Governor. Historically speaking, this type of split tends to lead to favoring incumbents and keeping historical strongholds. For more information on this, I suggest you Google redistricting as there are some very interesting sites out there (As a side note, I found that there are some people whose hobby is to create formulas and create redistricting maps. This is where I was able to get a lot of my information).

Based upon some of these models, if Missouri were to lose a representative in the House, all things seem to indicate that the one to be removed would be the current 3rd district. Based upon the models that some people are coming up with, Lacy Clay and the 1st district would expand out into more of the county and south city eating up part of the 2nd and 3rd district and the 2nd district would take over the remainder of the 3rd district and possibly some of the northern areas of the 1st district near northern St. Charles county. Now, if this were to occur, these changes would not go into effect until the 2012 election, but it could potentially pit Russ Carnahan, should he retain his district against Todd Aiken. While Jefferson County and south city tend to vote Democrat, Aiken would probably win as he would retain West County, St. Charles and possibly gain part of North County. That said it would probably mean a tough fight for anyone wanting to run for the 2nd District. To get a good idea of what I am talking about, go to Swingstate.com and do a search within the site for some MO projections. This is just one of many sites that have projections like this. The lines may change but the outcome seems to be universally the same, MO loses a seat. That is....

If Missouri is able to somehow prove population growth or at least no decline, Missouri may be able to keep the 9th seat. Lines will still be adjusted for population, but for the most part things would stay the same. So how does one work to keep MO population in check and help retain a Democratic seat within the House. To that I quote Lacy Clay's biography page on his website.

Congressman Clay is the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census and National Archives, which regulates the federal government’s information and privacy standards and also oversees the operations of the Census Bureau. One of Congressman Clay’s primary goals as chairman is to work with the Census Bureau to eliminate the undercount of African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities from the upcoming national census in 2010.

Nowhere does he say legal immigrants or citizens. What Lacy Clay wants to do is to count illegals in the city and outlying areas so that it can help save a House seat. Lacy Clay is not the only one that needs illegals to save seats. You see, population is decreasing in the North, Northeast and Midwest. Even though some of the major cities of the United States are in the North and Northeast (Boston, New York, Detroit, etc.) people are moving south. Based upon some projections by groups like POLIDATA, areas that tend to Republican will pick up many of the seats that Democrat states will lose. Here is a graphic that will better explain it.

Based upon this map, the GOP would have substantial gains in the House, helping to lower the current Democratic majority. The Democrats know about it and are very worried about this. Quietly they have already been talking about it as witnessed by this article written in December of last year. So how do you keep this from happening? How can the current Democratic majority keep a new wave of potential Republicans from coming into power. They count illegals. By counting illegals as citizens in the 2010 Census, the Democrats may be able to save some seats in California, Massachusetts and New York. This may work against them in Texas and Florida, but it seems it is a risk they are willing to take. Plus counting illegals in Texas and Florida, even if redistricted to give Republicans most if not all of the new districts, will give Democrats a chance at some of these new districts since it may thin out the Republican domination in areas. Why else would the Democrats want to work with a corrupt organization like ACORN to help with the census.

Now, as I said, this is all speculation, but it is an educated guess as to what is to come. 2012 is very important to both parties. It could be a change in the balance of power in the House, which could carry over into the White House. It's something to start thinking about. What do you think?

A Slippery Slope

Back in J school, I had a professor that would always say, "If you start down that path it is a slippery slope." I think that is the same thing he would say about what the current administration is doing in relation to speech. This administration is very savy in Internet and propaganda. They also tend to play Chicago style politics. The two make for a very unique and possibly ugly combination.

The Obama administration has not been shy about using the media to propel their message. It has been that way since he was candidate Obama. In fact, other Democrats complained about how the media was not asking him the hard questions and not being balanced in their reporting. It was so apparent SNL even did a skit based upon it. Once he was elected, it did not really change. Except there are a couple of problems:

1. Bloggers
2. Talk Radio
3. Fox News

Obama cannot control those three entities and the work they are doing is causing problems for this White House. So rather than engage and retort them, like most administrations would, Obama has instead started working to circumvent the system to quiet dissenters.

Let's go through this and look at how the White House is dealing with this.

Bloggers
This may be one of the most difficult issues for the administration. It is not easy to limit speech and that is exactly what they would have to try and do. The power of bloggers was truly showcased when Dan Rather was put in his place when he attempted to defame President Bush. Since then, blogging has become a way for many people, including yours truly, to report and and analyze the events of the day without having to belong to a newspaper or television organization. Obama took advantage of the power of the Internet to get himself elected. Since that time, it has been many of the bloggers who have risen up to become a political movement of their own and created the Tea Party. Add to that the far left bloggers who are unhappy with Obama not being progressive enough in their mind and you can see that Obama has a blogger problem. So what are they to do? This starts with FTC cracking down on bloggers for payola schemes. This seems obvious, bloggers are going to have to let people know that they were given a product or were paid to promote an item in their blog. While this is the ethical thing to do, the interesting part of this is that it paves the way for the government to force ISP's and providers to provide private information of bloggers. There is not litmus test for this either. If I, as a blogger, am given a book on politics in the digital age by the author and I Tweet or post that I am reading this book, the FTC has a right to come after me if I do not disclose that I know the author and they gave me the book. Even if I did not run out and tell everyone to go out and buy this book, the FTC can come after me. Add to this the recent court case where a Manhattan federal judge has ordered Google to tell a model the name of an anonymous blogger so she could sue them for libel. We are in very dangerous waters here. Some people, like myself, have to stay anonymous so that we may keep our jobs or to keep our families from harms way. In these cases, the government has begun paving the way to remove the anonymity and pressure those that we are speaking of.

In addition, the administration has used their own Internet savvy to try and counter the bloggers. Locally here we have the FiredUp Missouri blog which is one of many Democratic controlled blogs that are made to feel like the authentic blogs like yours truly, Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit and Sharp from Sharp Elbows have created. BTW, hat tip to 24th state on all the good work he has done researching FiredUp's links to Robin Carnahan's office. Barack Obama himself has used his own website to transform from a campaign website to one that pushes for organizing support for his plans. In addition, Dana Loesch has found some great stuff on how serve.gov was linking to groups like Acorn. Since the administration cannot completely stop their critics, they crowd the market with spokespersons perpetrating to be regular folk and linking back to their supporting organizations.

Talk Radio
This is where things start getting uglier and more apparent. Candidate Obama came out and said that he was against the "Fairness Doctrine". That sounds great, but listen to what his surrogates are saying. Mark Lloyd, the FCC diversity "czar" was quoted as saying, "Unless we're conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." These statements were made in regards to talk radio hosts and ownerships. Lloyd's solution in a report entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" and a subsequent essay, "Forget the Fairness Doctrine", he calls for he called for "equal opportunity employment practices," "local engagement" and "license challenges" to rectify a perceived imbalance. "Nothing in there about the Fairness Doctrine," he wrote. He continues by saying, "The other part of our proposal that gets the 'dittoheads' upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don't want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community." So instead of mandating equal time, he wants to make stations pay to allow commercially successful free speech.

Implementing a program like this would be no less than bullying media outlets to either pay for play or support the likes of "Air America". Never-mind that the government already supports National Public Radio but under Lloyd's plans, media outlets could be forced to pay for government favorable views. If you want to know more about Lloyd and his interesting interactions, check out this transcript from Glenn Beck.

Fox News
This one kind of blurs between talk radio and FNC since many of the opinion shows are hosted by people who are part of the conservative talk radio movement. That said, let's talk about Fox News and the Fox News Channel. Within recent weeks, the Obama administration has made it clear that they are going to go after their opponents. They have publicly statedthat they are going after their critics. In the case of Fox News, the news channel itself has been fair in their reporting, showing both sides of the issues. That said, the administration takes issue with FNC's opinion shows that lean anywhere from Libertarian to hard right, with Greta Van Susteren being probably the only center to left of center opinion show. The Obama administration hates that. They would prefer to have everyone emulate MSNBC and the New York Times. Why else would it be that Barack Obama met privately with a group of commentators from these two groups to talk about the media.

What the administration is trying to do is paint Fox News as not a news outlet, but an opinionated news forum, therefore not worthy of being considered in the same vain as network news, including MSNBC and CNN. They are attempting to pressure other news organizations from allowing Fox News into the White House press corp and not reporting on news items broken by Fox News. In addition, the administration has banned all officials from appearing on Fox News shows and recently tried to keep Fox News from interviewing the "Pay Czar" when he was made available to the White House pool.

While Fox News is the most apparent act of the administration, all three are a scary attempt to control the free press. Any J school student at Mizzou will tell you that the press has long been seen as the fourth establishment, there with the Presidency, the Congress and the Supreme Court. While the press does not have federal power, they do have the power to keep these entities honest. They are also taught the history of other governments who have attempted to silence the press and the ways that they go about that. Even though the press has become a business whose model is changing, they all still respect the sanctity of the First Amendment and of free speech. There is a reason that some professors make every student learn, word for word, the First Amendment. Knowingly or not, the Obama administration is taking their leads from the likes of Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and even Adolf Hitler. Secretly, the press is not happy with the way they were manipulated by candidate Obama, as explained by Anita Dunn.

Obama is asking the news organizations that he favors to enter and engage a slippery slope that they do not want to go down. They no full well that if they act in concert with this president, it will set a dangerous precedent for the future. In addition, much like it has happened with other countries, they know what happens when the president starts bullying the press. These issues are not a matter of national security so the administration does not have a leg to stand on. While the pundits who back Obama will continue to do so, they may lose some of their zeal. Most Democratic strategist think this is a bad idea. Many in the print press, who dislike Fox News, think this is a bad idea. This is not going to end well for the administration. It may cost them some seats in 2010 and will probably cost someone their job if not the entire presidency in 2012.

UPDATE - On Thursday 10/29, Glenn Beck did an outstanding show covering many of these things and much more. It was well worth a view. You can watch them over at the P/Oed Patriot's website here.

Why McCain Not Winning Is A Good Thing

In an interview with Katie Couric Glenn Beck said he was glad that John McCain did not win the presidency. I know that I am a little behind on this but what can I say, we have Cardinals' baseball, apple picking with the kids, the daily grind, and trying to keep up with the healthcare debate and some research on my favorite target, Lacy Clay, so yeah, I am a little behind.

Anyway, I watched this interview online and I have to say that before Glenn even gave any type of explanation I agreed with him. The best thing that could have happened not just for the Republican party, but for America, was the election of Barack Obama. Why is that you may say, well let me tell you.

1. No longer will Pelosi and Reid be able to blame everything on Bush and the Republicans. Anytime something went wrong it was the Republicans fault. Never mind the facts that Bush and many Conservatives tried to end the sub-prime mortgage practices and were blocked by filibustering Dems like Obama. They are being exposed for their hypocrisy and their failed policies. A failure of this magnitude will really make people think when they vote again in 2010 and 2012.
2. This was a splash of cold water to the Republicans. Let's face it, the Republicans got lazy and were really shifting away from the core beliefs. Many in the RNC became to worried about appeasing the left, instead of taking care of the issues and doing what's right. They also became drunk with power and started participating in some massive pork spending. Losing in 2006 and 2008 has made the RNC have to refocus and find their identity. The question really becomes, will that identity be centrist right, conservative or somewhere in the middle.
3. In one 2 - 4 year period, this could create some drastic changes in the House and Senate that would not have happened. Pelosi and Reid are both going to have to run against serious challenges in their home state. Both could wind up losing their seats along with a slew of others including St. Louis' own Russ Carnahan. Add to that the people that work for and with Pelosi, Reid and Obama, people like Van Jones, are being brought to light.
4. The Democrats have overplayed their hand and showing their real far left agenda. People are seeing this and are not feeling comfortable with what they are seeing. Barack Obama has an approval rate between 48-52% and the Congress as a whole has an approval rating of 21%.
5. More people are standing up and becoming active in politics. This is potentially one of the most dangerous aspects to the Democrats. Their refusal to listen and in some cases brazen disregard for their constituents has led many people to stand up and become politically active. Do you think there would be a strong Tea Party movement if McCain were elected. I do not. The activist agenda that is in play right now would not have happened and many people would still be sitting at home, quietly simmering in anger at the government.

So yes my friends, it is a good thing McCain was not elected. Are we hurting, yes. That said, in the end we will be better for this pain. Sometimes you have to walk through the desert to get to the promised land. Now, if we could just bring back Ronald Reagan.

On the Turning Away

Apparently my last posting stirred up a little bit of a hornet's nest. I have suddenly noticed a lot of traffic coming from Washington DC as well as some of the various members of APRO. To my new readers, I say welcome. Now on to the matters at hand.

Have you noticed how the media, the group that did everything they could to get Barack Obama elected, are slowly starting to turn on him? More and more we are hearing the media, and I am talking about more than just Fox News, start to reference his inability to bring about the change that was promised. We are hearing complaints that the transparency that was promised is not there and we are hearing criticism that he is not as good as advertised.

Just take, for example, this excerpt from last week's Newsweek editorial from Howard Fineman

Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the
stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even
self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the
words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of
his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the
beginning, not the end, of the story.

This is not a glowing review of the president by any stretch of the imagination and Newsweek is a far stretch from the National Review.

Even Jon Stewart and SNL has had some recent digs at Obama. Just look at this from last weeks Saturday Night Live

Now, I am in no way of saying that the media is abandoning Barack immediately, but I think they are starting to get a sense that this ship is taking on water. Sure, they will do their best to act as his personal bilge pump but believe me, they are going to start hedging their bets.

It's just something to start thinking about and watching for.

Barack Obama = Manchurian Candidate?

Let me state for the record that I do not believe that Barack Obama has been hypnotized by the Chinese or any other government to turn this great county into some sort of Communist utopia. That said, I do believe that Barack Obama is an idealist that has been manipulated by those who believe in his ideals and can make money off of it.

I have held off on writing this entry for awhile because I was afraid that posting it would make me seem like some fringe lunatic. The problem is, the more digging I have done, the more I begin to believe it.

Rather than me convince you, just ask yourself this:

1. Is it coincidence that George Soros, a huge Obama supporter, made millions off of his investment in Brazilian oil companies thanks to Obama's pledge to invest in offshore drilling in Brazil.


2. Is it any coincidence that GE is working closely with the White House to craft carbon "Cap and Trade" bill. Consider that GE is the largest producer of wind turbines in the world. They are also one of the largest producers of turbines and equipment used in hydroelectric electricity generation. Add to that GE's hands off approach in adjusting the format of the extremely liberal MSNBC even though it is bleeding ratings even compared to CNN.


3. Is it any coincidence that two of Barack Obama's advisers are Bob Rubin and Jon Corzine. If you do not know who they are, they are the chairman of Citibank and the former chair of Goldman-Sachs and now governor of NJ. Now didn't those two companies get some bailout money from the government shortly after he took office.


4. Is it any coincidence that ACORN, a community activist group, received millions of taxpayer dollars to "help those in need" and to assist with the upcoming census. It is only after being caught on tape that they were removed from consideration for assistance with the census.


5. Is it any coincidence that Barack Obama has several connections to people who most of society would consider to be radical. Just look at the people he has worked with (Bill Ayers), prayed with(Jeremiah Wright) and had as a member of his cabinet (Van Jones). For even more detail, go to this link for even more detail of some of his radical affiliations. Hat tip to Diamond Tiger for all of the great research.

Barack Obama's idealism lets him see the best in people. He sees people for their good and potential. Because of this, he does not think that people are lazy or that people use others. He thinks anyone who is poor or downtrodden is there because of bad circumstance and not because they are lazy or not willing to work. This kind of attitude attracts opportunists and radicals and that is exactly what happened. People saw this attractive young man with a great story who people were drawn to and decided to take advantage of it.

So now you have this great guy who is in the Senate and made a big splash with a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Two years later, you have a Republican president with unfavorable ratings, the Democrats coming in strong in both the House and the Senate and the public wanting change. This bode well for those progressives that wanted to take advantage of the situation. The rest, as they say, is history.

So where does this leave us? Barack Obama is seeing the country revolt over his policies. His friends and acquaintances are seeing additional money roll their way, their policies they have long advocated put into action and their companies bailed out. It seems the longer he is in office, the more questionable associations we see.

Is Barack Obama an idealist who is being used by powerful businessmen and progressives or is he a progressive politician with a 60's progressive agenda? So, what do you think, am I over thinking this or is there something to this?

Glenn Beck Speaks the Truth

Glenn Beck really nailed it today. Just watch this and ponder.

All I can say is Wow.

The Hypocracy of Liberals

Liberals are the biggest hypocrites around. For anyone reading or following this blog, that is no surprise to you. These are the people that in 2008 told their followers to get in the face of Republicans, these are the people that would organize and bus in protesters and these are the people that will call you a racist, fascist, etc. the second you start destroying their arguments with a little thing called logic.

I have been asked by some people why I do not post my real name and pictures. I have already had one person say that I am a coward that his hiding behind the Internet. To a degree, that person is right. I do not use my real name nor post pictures of me because I am a father who is the sole bread winner for my family. My wife and I chose for her to stay home so my kids do not have to go to a babysitter at 6 or 7 in the morning and picked up at 5 or 6 in the evening. So my kids can have the parental interaction that neither of us had. This was a decision that we made long before we had our kids. We agreed that whomever was making the most money and had the job with the most potential would continue to work and the other would stay at home with the children.

Liberals do not play fair. They are hypocrites who cry foul if anyone other than them plays dirty. I do not give details on myself or my family for their protection. I work for one of many big corporations in the St. Louis area and I like being employed and having the position I have. I do not want to jeopardize that. I choose to participate in the background. I will still attend Tea Parties and sign petitions, but I am not ready to come into the public eye.

I am angry with the way our country is being handled. I hate the way our representatives treat us. I am going to do the best I can to make sure that Lacy Clay, Russ Carnahan, Clair McCaskill and Barack Obama do not continue to hold office. With that said, I have to do what is right to protect my family and our way of life.

I am making some very good strides in my effort to hit them where it hurts and I will continue to work on that and any other effort I can behind the scenes. Laugh me off or discount me if you must, but I am not going away.

Sarah Palin - What to do?

Let me start off by saying I am a big Sarah Palin fan. I think she is a great role model for young women. I like that she says whats on her mind and does not get uppity about it like many of the East Coast politicians who think they are smarter and better than the rest of us. That said, I think Sarah has some work that she needs to do some homework before she is ready for a possible presidential run in 2012.

What I have just said is nothing new, but here is my concern. Sarah is the embodiment of what could turn into a big issue for the Republican/Conservative movement. She has put out indicators that after being burned by the Republican party, she may be looking to start up a third party movement. The question really becomes, do we really want Sarah making a third party or even more do we want to risk Sarah being the catalyst for a second term of you better Hope I leave you some Change Barack Obama?

Honestly I fear that as things sit right now, she could cause a three way race between Obama, Romney and herself. That would spell chaos. As a fiscal conservative, I like Palin and aspects of Romney. As someone who is somewhere between conservative and moderate on social issues, I am torn. If there was a three way election today, the only thing I can guarantee is I would not vote for Obama.

Right now, I think Michael Steele and the Republican party better kiss and make up with Sarah, or it could spell real trouble come 2012.

What do you think?