Wednesday stuff, for want of a better word

My day is not proceeding as planned.  Grumble, grumble, grumble.

But I still found some good stuff out there:

For all the criticism aimed at him for daring to defend his nation from nuclear annihilation, Netanyahu successfully shifted the paradigm — not far enough, but it’s movement in the right direction.

Apparently 25 years or so is all it takes for New Yorkers to forget the horrors of Progressive government.  I know this is unfair to the small, smart minority that didn’t vote for de Blasio, but I hope that New York goes to hell in a hand basket very quickly (kind of the way Hollande’s France or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe did).  That seems to be the only way in which people invested in liberalism learn lessons.  (And sadly, sometimes, even the worst that can happen isn’t bad enough.)

Here are Seven devastating facts about Obamacare that you should memorize and politely slip into conversation whenever you find yourself trapped in conversation with those who still believe it’s a winner.

Jonah Goldberg suggests that the Republicans might want to be there for Tea Partiers because, ultimately, Tea Partiers are there for the Republicans.

And two from Keith Koffler.  The first is about Obama’s fraudulent conduct with regard to his “changing” views on gay marriage, and the second is about his administration’s fraudulent conduct regarding Obamacare.

I think it’s important that we stop using the word “lie.”  In the context of politics, we tend to think of a “lie” as an after-the-fact cover-up (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”). What Obama has done, repeatedly, is to commit fraud.  Fraud is a very specific legal animal.  Here’s as good a definition as any, culled from a fairly recent California case:  “The tort of deceit or fraud requires: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903, internal quotation marks omitted.)  Fraud is not a lie.  It’s much worse than a lie because you’re not just protecting yourself; you’re deliberating setting out to make others rely on you to their detriment.

And of course, Sebelius seems charmingly insouciant about the fact that your private information could end up in the hands of felons that Obama’s government has hired to collect that private information:

Finally!! A gun control proposal that makes sense

The repulsive Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson made news yesterday by putting out a fundraising letter that likens the Tea Party to the KKK (which, during its heyday, was an entirely Democrat organization):

Grayson fundraising letter comparing Tea Party to KKK

Today, in a very timely way, Caped Crusader sent me the first sensible gun-control proposal I’ve seen, when that gets to the heart of the violence underlying gun crime:

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.

In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria.

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013 Adam Lazna, the child of a registered Democrat, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

Recently, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

Best idea I’ve heard to date. JUST SAYING.

I always miss out on boycotts ’cause I never buy from the stupid companies to begin with

Since I passed the age of 10, and my infatuation with big eyed children and other cutsie things waned, I don’t believe I’ve ever bought a Hallmark card.  Note my use of the word “cutsie.”  I like cute things (witness my endless infatuation with my dog), but cutsie = cute + shlock.  That’s Hallmark.

Apparently, though, Hallmark seems dissatisfied with its friendly, Midwestern Mom image, so it’s added barbed, liberal political satire to its roster:

Hallmark, the greeting-card company that lays claim to making “the world a more caring place,” is under fire for producing a graduation card emblazoned with an image of Barack Obama that warns graduates to stay away from the tea party.


The card in question says on the front, “You graduated! Time to go to a lot of parties!”

And on the inside, “But avoid those tea parties if you can. Trust me.”

I’d love to turn my nose up and say “I’ll never buy Hallmark again,” except that, as I said, I don’t buy Hallmark now.  If you’re tempted to buy Hallmark, though, because there is a Hallmark card that somehow managed to be charming and/or clever, you might want to refrain.  Corporations can do what they please when it comes to putting something on the market, but consumers can also do what they please when it comes to refusing to buy a corporation’s products.

Hat tip:  Gateway Pundit

We have to be Churchillian about this Supreme Court decision — that is, we now fight to win

I’m going back and forth whether Roberts was a typical judge (i.e., stupid and unworthy of respect), a brilliant thinker, a chess player, a pawn, etc.  Each of you who has commented here has made an excellent point.  I agree with all of you, even when you disagree with each other.  In other words, I’m having a lovely intellectual wallow-fest.

The problem is that wallow-fests are for water-coolers and sodden drinking orgies at dank bars.  We don’t have time for that.  We have to get energized and quickly.  The breast beating will not win us the next battle.  Although no blood has actually been shed, I suddenly understand just how Winston Churchill felt as he worked to rally a shaken Britain following the Dunkirk evacuation.  Sure, the evacuation lives in history, as every boat in Britain rallied to rescue stranded British soldiers, but the fact is, that heroic moment came about because of a staggering military defeat.  Churchill’s words to the House of Commons in the aftermath of that disaster are worth remembering.

Churchill’s June 4, 1940 speech begins by describing, in blunt terms, the scope of the military disaster (although that disaster was somewhat allayed by the fact that the evacuation rescued more than 330,000 men, not the 45,000 predicted).  Then, he gets to the nub of the matter, which is that Britain must look not only on what it lost (and Churchill spoke in unvarnished terms about those losses), but also about what Britain still had, in terms of weapons, men and, most importantly, morale (emphasis mine):

Turning once again, and this time more generally, to the question of invasion, I would observe that there has never been a period in all these long centuries of which we boast when an absolute guarantee against invasion, still less against serious raids, could have been given to our people. In the days of Napoleon the same wind which would have carried his transports across the Channel might have driven away the blockading fleet. There was always the chance, and it is that chance which has excited and befooled the imaginations of many Continental tyrants. Many are the tales that are told. We are assured that novel methods will be adopted, and when we see the originality of malice, the ingenuity of aggression, which our enemy displays, we may certainly prepare ourselves for every kind of novel stratagem and every kind of brutal and treacherous maneuver. I think that no idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered and viewed with a searching, but at the same time, I hope, with a steady eye. We must never forget the solid assurances of sea power and those which belong to air power if it can be locally exercised.

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Or, as another famous English person once said, this is not the time for us to go all wobbly.

Enough breast beating.  It’s time to start the drums beating.  Remember, politics is a form of war, albeit (quite thankfully) a bloodless form.  We don’t win by pissing and moaning.  We win by making the 2010 Tea Party look like a mere trial run.  For those who are worried about Romney (and they are right because, while he hews conservative, he’s not a “principled conservative”) had better tether the man with a strongly conservative House, not to mention that all important conservative Senate.  Give money, send letters, carry signs, reason (not yell at, reason) with friends and family, be cheerful but determined.  Fight and win.

Second and third thoughts about the ObamaCare decision, which does have some saving grace

I was driving along in the car and, suddenly, the phrase “Roe v. Wade” popped into my head.  In 1973, the Supreme Court waded into what should have been a state-by-state legislative matter, and created the most vicious 39 year fight in America since the Civil War.  One side found the decision completely invalid, while the other side became so invested in its validity that it almost became a one-issue party — and, moreover, a one-issue party that became ever more extreme in its defense of its victory.  By parsing the decision as he did, Justice Roberts prevented another American civil war.

When I returned home and turned on my computer, I discovered that Charles Krauthammer was thinking along the same lines.  If I’m in sync with Krauthammer, I’m clearly in good company.

Krauthammer’s view is that Roberts wears two hats.  The first hat is the constitutional conservative, which kicked in to prevent him from allowing a vast expansion of the Commerce Clause.  The second hat is as the Supreme Court’s custodian.  That second hat requires Roberts to protect a Court that’s been under a shadow since the decisions in Roe v. Wade (favoring the Dems) and Bush v. Gore (favor the Republicans).  So, after wearing his conservative hat to deal with the Commerce Clause, Roberts still had some work left to do:

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the Court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger Courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the Court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the Court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

I think Krauthammer’s analysis is correct.  Roberts didn’t rule as he did because of his seizure medicine or because he was blackmailed.  He ruled this way because, perhaps rightly, he was keeping a legislative problem in the legislative sphere.  The American voters, by putting Democrats into Congress and the White House, broke the American system.  They now own that broken system and it’s up to them to fix it.  In this case, if the voters are smart enough, they’ll elect Republicans by a large majority.  If they’re not smart enough, we’re in for a lot more breakage.

Viewed this way, Roberts did the right thing.  He protected the Supreme Court’s integrity and he made the American people responsible for their own stupidity.

The best bet for the coming months is that Obama’s base will go home happy, and that he will not be able to rally them for the election.  They’ll be like the person who ate too much at dinner and sits there in a stupor, even as the roof falls on his head.  Unfortunately for Obama, Romney will be able to rally his base.  If you thought 2010 was the year of the Tea Party, wait until you see the summer of 2012.  Like 2012, Tea Partiers are up in arms; and unlike (and better than) 2012, this time they’re already organized with mailing lists, data bases, and vast amounts of political and protest experience.

Even better, after Americans suffered through months of the drug-addled, filthy, violent Occupy movement, the media is going to find it impossible to paint clean, polite, educated, employed Tea Partiers as crazed radicals.  This summer, the Tea Party will have traction, especially because the Supreme Court, in ruling in Obama’s favor, put a name on Obama’s conduct:  taxes on the middle class.

That’s all good.  What’s bad is that, as I noted in my original post on the subject, the Supreme Court has managed to allow taxes to have the scope of the Commerce Clause:  From this day forward, Congress can not only tax activity, it can also tax inactivity.  Long after Obama is gone from office, that legacy will remain.  The only saving grace is that taxes require simple majorities.  Easy come, easy go, one might say — except that taxes never go away easy, do they?


Congress not only can tax anything that moves, it can tax anything that doesn’t move

The Supreme Court opinion on ObamaCare runs to 193 pages.  It is the size of a book, only more boring than any book anyone would ever want to read — and that is true despite the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the worst writer on the court, didn’t write it.  I’ve been making a valiant effort to read it, but because I have other things to do with my life, I abandoned the darn thing about one-third of the way through.  For now, bottom line is sufficient.  Per the Supreme Court, ObamaCare imposes a tax on people who refuse to buy a product from a third-party. An example of that includes the Affordable Care Act which forces a penalty on those who do not take part in the newly-appointed health insurance marketplaces. That imposition is consistent with Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Ed Morrissey managed to encapsulate my immediate reaction to this, frankly, bizarre outcome:

It’s an interesting argument, but one that should have Americans worried.  Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies.  For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the money paid by taxpayers would go directly to government [see update II].  The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing.  It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified.

Nevertheless, this is the law of the land.  We can now look forward to taxes levied by the auto industry for not having bought a new car in the last seven years, the liquor industry for buying too few bottles of wine to maintain your health, and by the agricultural industry for not buying that damned broccoli after all. We might even have Obama attempt to impose a tax for not buying enough contraception; we can call that the Trojan tax.

Taxes have traditionally been levied to enable the government to buy and build things.  This is the first time in history, so far as I know, that a tax is being levied as a penalty against citizens who refuse to buy products from private vendors.  Taxes normally tax activity.  Sure, you pay taxes on a product when you buy a product but those are (a) state taxes, which are a different animal from federal taxes; and (b) taxes on a voluntary transaction.  That’s the important thing.  The transaction is voluntary.  You can opt to sit it out and the government cannot reach you.  Here, though, we are being told that the government can exact an onerous tax for inactivity.

The decision constitutes a radical redefinition of what constitutes a tax.  It is exactly what opponents said it was:  the biggest tax in history and one, moreover, that Americans cannot alter their behavior to avoid.  I am therefore at a loss to figure out why Roberts signed on to this decision, let alone authored it.  It is a staggering constriction on individual freedom.  The closest analogy to this tax is the poll tax of 1380, a tax that saw one of the biggest revolts in medieval British history and one that almost toppled the monarchy.  Poll taxes are flat taxes but, more importantly, they tax someone just for being.

Okay, that’s the bad news and it’s very bad in the long-term.  There are some potential short-term benefits, although they’re only possible, not probable:

Because ObamaCare is a tax, it’s easy to repeal the tax aspects, which leaves the whole thing unfunded.  Still, unfunded doesn’t mean vanished.  All the bits and pieces, the obligations, impositions, panels, etc., live on, unless Congress can gather itself together and formally repeal the whole darn thing.

The other short-term benefit is that it might galvanize those Americans who hate ObamaCare, leading them to vote for Romney.  That’s so not a sure thing, though.  It’s a great victory for Obama, and might finally put the wind at his back.  His signature legislation is a good thing, said the United States Supreme Court.  For many Americans, that might fall into the category of “that’s all she wrote.”  The fat lady has sung.  The opera is over.  It’s time to go back home and get on with your life.  If Roberts had some strange idea that he’d help a Romney election, he was taking a mighty big gamble with the American people, their freedom, and their money.  (Speaking of money, it’s no coincidence that the market plummeted once it received word that Congress not only can tax anything that moves, it can tax anything that doesn’t move.)

I am disheartened, but disheartened is not the same as defeated.  It is now imperative that Republicans take back Congress in its entirety and win the White House.  Jim Carville and others may proclaim the Tea Party dead, but I suspect they’ll see a Zombie Tea Party taking to the streets this summer.

Others blogging:

Kim Priestap

Maggie’s Farm/Bruce Kesler

American Power

The Anchoress and The Anchoress again

The Volokh Conspiracy (was Roberts somehow forced to uphold the law?)

Jay Cost (this may harm Obama more than he thinks in the long run)

Slate (Obama wins battle; Roberts wins war)

Noisy Room


Comparing the Tea Party and the OWS movement, side by side

When Obama came to San Francisco, two of my favorite photo-essayists attended the street protests, which marked the rare coming together (sort of) of Tea Partiers and OWSers, all of whom are discontented with Obama.

Here’s Zombie.

And here’s Fund47.

I’d add more but anything I say would be redundant, as their posts are vivid and comprehensive.

The Passover story writ large in the elites’ approach to the Tea Party and the OWS movement

Over the years, I’ve written more than 10,000 posts.  (Yeah, that’s a scary thought, isn’t it.)  They do tend to run together in my mind, but there are a few standouts.  These are the posts in which I felt that I offered an insight or analysis that is genuinely helpful to considering a serious issue of the day.  One of my all-time favorite posts in this vein is Pharaoh, the Ten Plagues, and Iran.  In it, I tackled Mr. Bookworm’s complaint that Passover is a barbaric holiday, because it celebrates the massacre of the First Born Egyptians.  Certainly, the Pharaoh’s intransigence, despite the many plagues sent to bedevil his people (plagues that surely brought death in their wake) culminates with a mass die-off in Egypt.

The death of the innocent Egyptian first born is certainly tragic, but the Bible story, I said, has a much larger and more important point:

Sheltered in his lavish palace, Pharaoh might worry about a populace starving and frightened, but that was irrelevant as long as that same populace continued to fear and worship him.  The people’s suffering, ultimately, was irrelevant to his goals.  It was only when the price became too high — when Pharaoh’s power base was destroyed because his citizens were destroyed — that Pharaoh was convinced, even temporarily, to alter his evil ways.

From that point, I drew analogies to Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and current day Iran.

Today, Duane Lester found proof that, when it comes to the current crop of Leftist elites, in government and in the media, the same thinking holds true:  they do not care if the people suffer; they only care if the elites suffer.

So next time you hear some Progressive speaker go on and on and on about “the people,” ask him which worries him more:  massive mob violence on the street aimed at bringing down the capitalist system, or a single conservative loon who might get too close to someone in D.C.

A story that needs to make the rounds: City of Richmond auditing the Tea Party *UPDATED*

Fact:  The Tea Party, when it held three protests in the City of Richmond, applied for permits, and paid $10,000 for permits, potties, police, etc.

Fact:  The OWS protesters in Richmond simply plunked themselves down, paying nothing (and, I’m guessing, incurring significantly greater police and janitorial charges than did the Tea Party crowd).

Fact:  When the Tea Party learned that it had been damaged by disparate treatment from a civic government, it applied to the City of Richmond for a full refund.

Fact:  The City of Richmond has now sent an audit letter to the Tea Party.  I’ll add here a bonus fact:  the city’s mayor is a Democrat.

Fact:  You need to send this story around to as many people as you can.  The City of Richmond needs to be exposed for this abuse of power and, I hope, horribly embarrassed.

And here’s something that’s not a fact, but that is just my opinion:  The City of Richmond’s behavior perfectly illustrates one of the reasons I’ve embraced conservativism.  I am deeply suspicious of consolidating too much power in any one entity.  The City of Richmond is just one city, yet even that modicum of power has corrupted it.  Imagine this kind of thing playing out on a grand, national scale.  No human is sea-green incorruptible, and most humans, when given power, can get dangerously giddy, with a further subset getting malevolently destructive.

UPDATE: Here’s a more detailed story — which includes a great link to VA Right, a member of the Watcher’s Council.

Barack Obama on Tea Parties and Flea Parties: Wrong Again

Up until recently, the Tea Party might just as well have been called the DevilNaziEvilRacistUgly Party as far as the Progressives and their ilk were concerned.  In retrospect, calling participants “Tea Baggers” was one of the nicer things the Left said.  Barack Obama did nothing to stop this concerted attack against a substantial portion of the American population.

Now, though, Obama’s rhetorical shoe is on the other foot, which is peculiar, really, because, as far as I can tell, he’s got at least one foot lodged firmly in his mouth.  How else to account for this bizarre pronouncement?

President Obama today likened the anti-Wall Street protests to the Tea Party protests that helped Republicans in last year’s congressional elections.

“In some ways, they’re not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party,” Obama told ABC’s Jake Tapper in an interview to air tonight on Nightline.

The only thing that the OWeS* and the Tea Partiers have is that they’ve both turned out to protest the government.  Only an idiot would take that single fact and use it as the basis for saying that the two movements aren’t “that different” from each other.  I mean, someone who would compare OWeS and Tea Partiers probably comes from the same intellectual milieu the same kind of person who would seek to gather under the “freedom fighter” umbrella both al Qaeda in Iraq, which wants to kill all Jews, Christians, and homosexuals, while subordinating everyone to worldwide sharia, and the Founding Fathers, who wanted to maximize individual freedom, including freedom of worship.  Nobody could be that dumb.  Oh . . . never mind.

For the President’s edification, here are just a few differences:

Tea Partiers want small government; OWeS want big government.

Tea Partiers are constitutionalists; OWes are Marxists.

Tea Partiers are extremely tidy; OWeS are filthy slobs.

Tea Partiers pay their own way (and expect the government to do so too); OWeS expect everyone to pay for them.

And of course, Tea Partiers and OWeS have very different visuals:


*Thanks to Indigo Red for that wonderful acronym.

Labor Day with Sarah Palin, by guest blogger Bizcor

Our own Bizcor had the opportunity to attend a Tea Party Express rally on Labor Day.  Here are his impressions:

On Labor Day I attended a Tea Party Rally for the very first time and I really only went because Sarah Palin was going to speak. I am an unabashed admirer.

As far as the Tea Party goes. I basically agree with what it stands for but don’t attend the rallies because I already “get it,” if you will. I work behind the scenes to help local, state, and national candidates with conservative values get elected. Judging from the comments I read in the Bookworm Room, I think most of you would agree with the folks that I work with. It is all unpaid volunteer work but it literally gives me a direct line to my representation. From dog catcher all the way up. Obama doesn’t take my calls but the next guy or gal might.

The “Tea Party Rally” was a very interesting gathering of people. I have long been an observer of people. It began in the spring and summer of 1970 when I lived in New York City. On my Sundays off. I would buy a cup of coffee and go sit on bench in Central Park and just watch people. It was always entertaining. There were hippies smoking pot, little kids vexing their parents, skaters, folks feeding the pigeons and of course the ever popular crazy people who would do some of the…. well…. craziest things. One can learn a lot from simple observation.

The “Tea Party” people gathered Monday were old, young, black, Hispanic, white, Asian, and Middle Eastern. They were well dressed, poorly dress, long haired, short haired, and no haired either by design or nature. There were motorcycle guys and gals with magnificent tattoos, there were business men and women, politicians, and small children. In short it was a true cross section of the American population. AND, AND, AND as diverse as the crowd was everyone was well behaved and polite, smiling and nodding as they moved about. It was easy to talk with the people there. They, like me, are absolutely fed up with what is going on in the country today and had gathered to listen to Sarah Palin and other featured speakers as well as each other.

(Photo from Bizcor's own collection)

It is always interesting for me to watch news coverage of an event I have attended. Not only do I observe people I also know how to estimate crowds. The local TV news reports said Sarah Palin spoke to several hundred people. My estimate was at least 1500 or more. There you go again underestimating the crowd because after all it is Sarah Palin and the Tea party so you wouldn’t want to give them any credit. I had a very good spot and heard every word Sarah said. From where I stood my deaf old ears could have heard her without the benefit of a microphone. The local TV news reports complained that all she did was complain about the media. Admittedly she did take some swings at the media. Can you blame her? I can’t recall anyone who has been maligned the way she has. Sarah, however, spoke of many things such as ending crony capitalism, that it exists on both sides of the isle, and it needs to stop right now. She reminded the audience that she had taken on big oil in Alaska and taken on her own party in an effort to end the crony capitalism and corruption. She explained we need a President who is willing to do the same thing in Washington. America needs someone with the courage to cut the out of control spending. She even poked fun at herself reminding us of the now famous “refutiate” mistake. She does however know that there are only 50 states.

Sarah Palin stood there on the stage and made people want to go out and participate in the process in a positive way. She did it with a smile on her face, a bright gleam in her eye, and conviction in her voice. She didn’t resort to name calling. She didn’t stumble during her speech, she was able to ad lib without an “umm” or an “ahh” and she was able to get back to her prepared remarks smoothly after the ad lib. Not bad for a dummy huh?

Sarah Palin has been the brunt of jokes portraying her as stupid. She is not. People have wished her dead, raped, beaten and more. Her family has been threatened. Media hacks have gone through her trash and e-mails looking for the slightest minutia. She has taken everything they have dished out and she keeps on going. Lesser people would have folded. I really believe it makes her stronger. I wonder how Barak Obama would have stood up to the same scrutiny. To my mind Sarah Palin has the same stuff as Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Abraham Lincoln. She is brave, courageous, bold, and unapologetic about who she is and where she stands which is why I admire Sarah Palin. That is also why I got up early, got to the event early, and picked out front row spot. I wanted to see her eyes while she spoke and you can see from the photo I included with this I could see her eyes. I wanted to hear her entire speech not just what the media wanted me to hear. I have yet to meet her in person but look forward to the day that I do. I think she is the real deal.

On the subject of “President Palin” I don’t know. Do I think she could do the job? Yes, I do. Her electability is the question. The media has so prejudiced the people of this country against her I don’t know how one would overcome it. It is not just the left who is afraid her. The elitists in the Republican Party aren’t too keen on the idea of Sarah in White House because she would start cleaning house and it wouldn’t matter which side of the “House” you sat in. It would seem to me that corruption is corruption in her mind. Could you imagine what Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Allen West could do to turn the tide of this country for the better if they were working in concert? Finally, I think Sarah has taken too long to announce whether or not she is running.

As I said I admire Sarah Palin and I see her as a person of interest in this election cycle. Maybe she will be a candidate maybe she won’t. I don’t know her mind. Being in the trenches with all the other behind the scenes people my odds on favorite and it is early but…my odds on guess as to the nominee for the GOP? Rick Perry. Governor Perry unless he does something really stupid should beat Obama in 2012.