Continue reading »]]> Barry Horn does, well maybe.

Who is Barry Horn? Old dude who works for the Dallas Morning News covering “sports media” .  Just days after I published my list of Best/Worst D/FW Sports Media Personalities, Mr. Horn released what he called the “Media Mount Rushmore–Dallas Edition.”

How do our lists compare? Horn had Kevin Sullivan, Randy Galloway, Blackie Sherrod and Mike Rhyner on his list. I actually had Mike Ryhner right on the outside of my Top 5, but didn’t have Sullivan or Galloway anywhere near my Top 5. Sherrod is a legend, but asking me my opinion is like asking me my opinion of the playing career of Roger Staubach. Sure, I was alive at the end of his career and I know he was great, but I never got to experience his greatness first hand as an adult.

I would love to see who Horn would put in his Bottom 5…

Continue reading »]]> It’s been a lazy Sunday afternoon in my household and I had the opportunity to enjoy two, very different, yet fascianting political documentaries. The first, from the right, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, which as the name suggests focuses on the Federal governments involvement in the raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco.

The second documentary, slightly less dark, is from a far Left perspective. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman’s documentary, The Party’s Over, where Hoffman attempts to pull a Michael Moore and takes his camera and crew on the 2000 Presidential election circuit, from the training ground of street protesters through the Democrat and Republican conventions and all of the drama surronding Florida. Though a typical Hollywood Leftist lackey, Hoffman does a good job of getting opinions from people of diverse political backgrounds.

I might draft thorough reviews of both documentaries, after I’ve had more time to digest their content, but for now, I’m left with two main observations.

1.) I found it ironic watching Waco:  The Rules of Engagement, that two of the politicians most vocal in supporting the Federal governments actions in Waco were Vice-President Joe Biden (D-DE) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Their basic response to the entire ordeal was that David Koresh and his followers presented a danger to the American people; therefore, the actions of the Federal government were justified. However, these same two politicians, bitch and moan about detention facilities for terrorists, such as the one in Guatonomo Bay, Cuba, and the “enhanced interrogation” tactics employed by agents of our government.

On one hand, these Democrat politicians support harsh treatment of alleged religious warriors (i.e.  Waco), but in the other instance they decry the use of more human tactics (i.e. waterboarding at Guatonomo). How can justify this hypocrisy?

2.) Throughout the movie The Party’s Over, Hoffman attempts to show that there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties, both are run by corporate interests and greed. He continually asks the question, “what is the difference between the two parties?” Mr. Hoffman, as someone who has worked actively on campaigns in both parties, I can tell you the main difference, from a philosophical perspective, is the proper role of the Federal goverment.

Continue reading »]]> I look at the opinion polls regarding Barack Obama and I’m puzzled, just like I was puzzled when W. was relected President in 2004. I’ve already established that members of both Bush and Obama administrations were masters at spinning fear, but with Obama I think there is an additional element contributing to his poll numbers.

It appears that many Americans are on a “sugar high,” caught up in the “feel good” elements surronding Obama’s presidency. They’re enthralled with his Access Hollywood lifestlye. They’re mesmerized by the members of the glitterati that make up his social clique. They’re caught up with his verbosity and his eloquence. Yet, they fail to see the man behind the curtain. Indeed, Obama’s handlers are running around screaming, “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,” for all that lies behind the curtain is an empty suit and Karl Marx starter kit.

But Americans are caught in the charade. They’re caught up in the “warm” feelings surronding the Obama presidency both here and abroad. It feels good, just like sugar tastes good on the pallate. Like sugar, the Obama effect leaves people with a temporary high, numbing their senses to reality.

But sugar provides very little nourishment to the body and man (or woman) cannot survive on sugar alone. Eventually the “high” wears off and we come crashing down, our bodies requiring nourishment.

Eventually this ”sugar high” will wear off for some of these Obama supporters, when his Leftist agenda becomes the gadfly that stings through the numbness and brings them crashing back to reality. Let’s just hope it’s sooner, rather later.

Continue reading »]]> I hate collectivism!

Any movement that seeks to enforce community standards on a group of people rapes the individual of his most precious gift–his self.

For eight years, the nimrods in the Bush administration tried to legislate an extreme version of evangelical Christianity. I am a Christian, an evangelical even, but I don’t want the government legislating the rigid values of certain sect of evangelical Christians. When I wasn’t criticizing the Bush administration for their imperialistic trot through Baghdad, I criticized them for their unholy alliance with bigots like James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and hypocrites like Ted Haggard.

Today, the names have changed, but the game remains the same. The tax cheats in Obama’s gang seeks to force another form of collectivism on us, this one favored by Marx–socialism. Timmy Geithner now thinks Americans have a “deep moral imperative,” to fall in line with Obama’s economic policy.  Maybe then we can come together and all sing, “He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother.”

Are you kidding me? Americans are really buying into this? Do they not see he’s pulling  page out of  Mussolini’s playbook?

Collectivism, whether it be in the form of a planned theocracy or in smiley faced Marxism, runs counter to the very core of this great nation. The Republican Party I grew up in cheerished the rights of the individual and I hope that someday they return to those roots. Until then, it looks like we’re stick with at least another ten years of a government trying to force collectivism down our throats.

Continue reading »]]> Do you remember where you were on the night of March 18, 2003?

I do. I was at Players, a sports bar, located on the physical border of Texas and Arkanas in the town of Texarkana. I remember because on that night George W. Bush commandeered the airwaves of every major television station and issued an ultimatum to Sadaam Hussein 48 hours–leave Iraq or face the Untied States military. Players catered to a decidedly “red state” crowd and I was anything but a “red stater.”

Just that morning, a letter I wrote to the local newspaper had been published expressing my dissent to the planned invasion. I lost a lot of friends over that letter, but I stayed true to my beliefs. That night, the crowd at Players cheered the TV as Bush spoke from his balls and I hung my head in shame. I felt that these people and millions of Americans across the nation were falling to the politics of fear. I never bought into the “fear Iraq” message and was a vocal opponent to the war effort from the beginning. Over time, I was proven right.

The Left attacked George W. Bush over his lies and his “fear mongering.” Imagine my surprise when, barely into his first month in office, Barrack Hussein Obama decided to play the “fear” card as well, this time in regards to the economy. Every time Obama speaks he tries to convince the American people that we should fear the current economic climate and turn to him and socialist, tax dodging pinkos to save us.

Just like I did with Bush, I’m calling bullshit on Obama’s claims. I didn’t fear Sadaam Hussein and I don’t fear this economy. If anything scares me it’s B. Hussein Obama’s attempts to deal with the economy.

Continue reading »]]> This past week our nation marked the end of an eight year nightmare. The George W. Bush administration betrayed the American people, choosing to govern by truly un-American principles. People around the globe rejoiced as Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Barack Obama as the 44^thPresident of the United States (or did he?) and many spoke of their hopes for the new President. Personally, I hope that President Obama reverses many of the ultra conservative social policies enacted by the previous administration, ends government intrusion in our daily lives, attempts to be more diplomatic in dealing with our foreign allies and negotiates an effective withdrawal of troops in Iraq. However, listening to voices from abroad and from some of the more radical elements in our own country, many have more nefarious hopes for our new President.

Anatole Kaletsky published a very telling piece in the Thursday, January 22, 2009, edition of London’s, The Times, in which he expressed his hope that President Obama would “reinvent” American capitalism. The plan Mr. Kaletsky spells out calls for the United States to abandon the very principles of capitalism that allowed our nation to grow its’ economy and, in doing so, replace the British empire as the world’s super power, and adopt in its’ place a smiley faced, sugar coated version of socialism accepted by most European nations.

Mr. Kaletsky attempts to convince his reader that American capitalism lies at the root of the eight year nightmare known as the “Bush administration,” that American capitalism is the sole cause for the current economic plight facing our world, that American capitalism, like communism, is evil and must be destroyed. I find irony in a Soviet born writer comparing “American capitalism” to the forces of communism that ultimately forced him to leave his home land. While some born in the Soviet Union saw the horrors of their government, defected and embraced our system of him freedom, liberty and markets (e.g. Ayn Rand), others like Mr. Kaletsky cannot fathom an economic system free of the heavy hand of government regulation and intrusion.

Why can’t the English get out of the way and let us save the world the way we have time and time again?

I aim not to dispute all the fallacies in Mr. Kaletsy’s argument, but merely to offer my voice as a supporter of both President Barack Obama and to free-market capitalism. The Federal government cannot cure our economic woes, only the markets can take care of themselves. Indeed, the Federal government will only make things worse. Yes, our nation elected President Obama on a platform of change, but our system of free-market capitalism is one of the few things in our nation not in need of change.

Continue reading »]]> We’re all familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf, after seeing the Bush administration’s presentation of the $700 billion dollar bailout, I’m convinced that George W. Bush is the President who cried wolf.  Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration sent out every one of their minions to convince our nation and the rest of the world that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to our way of living.  I never bought into Iraq war propaganda, but millions of Americans and many world leaders did–look at the debacle it turned into. While things have definitely turned and are headed in a positive direction in Iraq, it’s hard to believe anything that comes out of Bush’s mouth.

With that said, when George W. Bush comes out in front of the nation and says, “our entire economy is in danger,” many Americans are skeptical. Is our economy really in such dire condition that we must rely on the Federal government to spend $700 billion it doesn’t have to bail out troubled financial institutions or does George Bush have ulterior motives with the proposed bailouts, such as helping those who helped him get elected?

No wonder so many Americans are outraged!

Continue reading »]]> Looking back, I wish I had purchased a camera phone to ensure that I have at all times, a means of digitally recording those thought provoking moments in life that words cannot explain.  As I pulled the drive through of local fast food restaurant on a recent evening, I noticed a beer can, standing upright, on the bumper of the truck in front of my car.  On closer look, I noticed that the beer can was positioned directly over a “W ‘04” sticker.  Initially, a million humorous thoughts about “redneck Republicans”  and George W’s own documented past with DWI’s ran through my head, but after further reflection I now realize it represents a more serious thought. 

As well know, drinking and driving do NOT mix.  The drunk driver represents a person who has bad judgment.  The beer can on the bumper of the truck kind of symbolizes the Republican party to me—a party full of bad decisions, which may be bring temporary relief but sure to end in tragedy. 

During the height of the “Reagan Revolution”, conservative thought dominated our nation’s foreign policy.  Stretching back into the Nixon and Ford administration, we see this same “what works now” type of philosophy.  Whether you realize it or not, Donald “Rummy” Rummsfield, Dick “The Cardiac Kid” Cheney, and many other members of the present Bush administration had a direct hand in placing Sadam Hussein in power in Iraq.  They saw it as a temporary means to defeating the evil “Iranians”.  They didn’t bother to think of future consequences.  So, when you think of the atrocities committed by men like “Chemical” Ali, thank Rummy for his own brand of “drunk driving.” (but keep in mind Westerners, Winston Churchill specifically, were the first ones to consider gassing the Kurds).  When you hear the horror stories from the people of Iraq, thank a Republican, they put the system in place that allowed the torture to occur.  When you see an innocent Iraqi child murdered in the streets of Bagdhad, when you hear of American soldier killed in the line of fire, thank America’s most notorious “drunk drivers”, the Republican Party.

For those of you still searching for the link between 9/11 and Iraq here you go…the Republicans are responsible for both.  Not only did the Republican Party put Sadam Hussein in power, but they also made Osama bin Laden and the Taliban very rich and powerful.  You see, during the 1980’s, we had a much different threat. Ronald Wilson Reagan was still living in the 1950’s…a time when he led a witch hunt against his friends in Hollywood trying to weed out suspected communists….He carried that fervor with him into the White House and was determined to battle communism regardless of the cost.  Forget that he destroyed our economy with his spending, instead focus on the fact that he funded, with money and weapons, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets occupying Afghanistan.  Like a drunk driver, the Republicans in power didn’t bother to think, “what potential harm could this have on our country”…they saw it merely as a means to fight communism…NEWSFLASH: Communism was…and ultimately did kill itself…no man..no political system..no Star Wars program brought the Iron Curtain down…it fell because of the laws of nature.

Drunk drivers make very bad decisions.  Sometimes their decision to drink and drive ends in tragedy, anger and outrage are expected and acceptable forms of response to their actions.  It doesn’t necessarily make them bad people, just shows they are incapable of making competent decisions.  They need treatment and our love and support.  Republicans are the same way, incapable of rational thought but not “bad people” by nature. 

Continue reading »]]> Please note, the following is the first of a multi-part series entitled, “From the Archives,” an attempt on my part to consolidate my previous blogs. The following entry, entitled, “Fear This,” was drafted following the 2004 Democratic National Convention, on August 10, 2004, and is extremely relevant in this election cycle. It’s amazing how my thoughts on Barack Obama have shifted since that time (see the other posts on this blog). This post will remain here for one week, at which time I will move it to August, 10, 2004.

Throughout the Democratic National Convention speakers referenced the immortal words from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” Roosevelt’s words spawned over 30 years of progressive politics, government reform, and foreign policy that made this country what we see today. During this span, from Roosevelt’s first term through the Johnson administration, the United States went from an isolated power in the grips of a “Great Depression” to a shinning beacon of freedom, prosperity and equality for all the world to see.

The policies of this period engendered an internal metamorphosis of the Republican Party, which transformed the Republicans from the “party of Lincoln” to the party of fear. Conservatives launched gratuitous attacks against the “New Deal, “Fair Deal”, and the “Great Society”, pandering to public fears caused by economic and social changes. In a similar fashion, Republicans today feed off fears of an American public caught in the midst of a changing world. The Bush administration understands the simple precepts of fear: Fear is the product of ignorance. Keep American’s uninformed or present only partial information and fear will rein supreme.

Recently, Annie Jacobsen wrote an article for the conservative publication Women’s Wall Street, detailing “suspicious activities” of 14 Syrian passengers on a flight. On the surface, Jacobsen’s article delivers an alarming report on government oversight and inactivity on the part of air marshals, but the questions not asked confirm the true nature of the article. Terrorists proved through 9/11 that with five people they could bring down an aircraft, why sacrifice 14 terrorists on one flight when their numbers could be better divided on more flights and inflict more damage? Could these people be traveling together and wish to associate with each other for that reason? Authorities determined that the 14 Syrian passengers were musicians traveling to a show in Las Vegas-is it not logical that musicians, traveling in a country where people judge them by their ethnicity, would stick together?

While Jacobsen paints a poignant picture of families crying, the stewardess desperately searching for someone to take action, and even Jacobsen’s own “spiritual rebirth”, the article clearly illustrates how many in our nation have become incapacitated by fear. On September 11, 2001, passengers on Flight 93 saw suspicious activity and instead of being paralyzed by fear, they rose to the occasion and saved countless lives in the Washington, D.C. area. Where were the heroes of Jacobsen’s flight?

Republicans hope to incapacitate voters by fear. Not only do they constantly raise and lower the “terror threat level” without giving us hard evidence, but they also issue ambiguous warnings about election terror and are seeking powers to postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack. Wouldn’t a terrorist attack be the perfect time for an election? Obviously it would be a sign that our elected officials had failed us.

Perhaps even more frightening are the “social fears” raised by the Bush administration. While our economy continues to sink and our own soldiers continue to die in Iraq, Bush felt a threat from homosexuals who seek to participate in the rights of marriage. They warned American’s that homosexuals threatened the “sanctity of marriage”. Clearly, Bush has never associated with homosexuals and neither have the people who buy into his thinking. Homosexuals present no threat to anyone. The only threat to marriage is marriage itself. Evangelicals try and convince my generation that marriage is the only appropriate vehicle to engage in certain activities. As a result, many young people flock to the altar to marry for the sake of marriage and the honeymoon is short lived, divorce rates skyrocket. Until we dispel the Puritanical myths of the “right” marriage will continue to crumble.

Republicans tell American’s to “fear” Democrats because they will raise taxes. Yes, Democrats do wish to raise taxes but only on those who make $200,000 or more a year and deserve and can afford to contribute more to this great nation. To those of you in the upper class I say congratulations you’ve made it, but with your wealth comes extra social responsibility.

In his acceptance speech, John Kerry said, “The future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.” How fitting to close the convention with these encouraging words. The same convention that introduced the world to young, vibrant leaders such as Barack Obama, pushing a message of unity and strength, closes with a message to combat fear in our homeland.