So there I was. Lying in bed last night. My wife already asleep. I was surfing the net and twitter on my iPad, winding down for the night after watching Futurama when The Daily Show comes on. I do typically watch The Daily Show for its entertainment factor if not for some insight on what sort of news folks my age are getting these days (it still boggles my mind to think that for many of my peers The Daily Show is one of if not the only news source they listen to).

Is this what you had in mind, or has the line been crossed yet?

I can't say that I am a big conspiracy theorist. I love to read about them and see the creative ways that people piece seemingly unrelated coincidences into massive plans of corruption and quests for power. The theory that seems most compelling to me is the "One World Order" theory. You know. That one that says there is a secret, shadow government that truly runs all the world's affairs from a single room, and all elected politicians in the richest companies are actually controlled by these guys (or gals). Exciting and compelling stuff, wouldn't you say?

Now there are plenty of variations on this theory. Is it a group of religious figure-heads? Free Masons? Who knows. But one of the predominate theories--especially after the economic crisis--is the idea that these puppeteers are actually bankers. Big shots in the financial industry with the money to effect elections and even war through armaments. Now, like I said, I don't put too much stock in these theories being actually true, but something did happen today that made me instantly think of this conspiracy theory in particular.

Today, a Senate panel decided to back Ben Bernanke for a second term as head of the federal reserve. Bernanke? The same guy that didn't see the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" (quoted for President Obama) coming? The guy who said unemployment wouldn't exceed 10.1% which soon reached a high 10.5%? Well that alone wouldn't make the case for some group of powerful bankers influencing the decision of a Federal Reserve Head. Bernanke would have to be of some use to them. Give them some edge. Well it just so happens that Bernanke does that.

One of the primary duties of the Fed Chairman is to set the Fed Discount Rate. For those of you less than acquainted with the workings of the Federal Reserve, the Discount Rate is the rate at which banks can borrow cash from the federal reserve in order to pay loans and hand out to customers. It gets all really technical. If you are still interested, check out Wikipedia. Anyway, so Bernanke has kept the fed rate low at .5% (how many of you would like that rate for your mortgage?).

So what? Doesn't mean they are getting rich off this. Aren't they? Ask yourself how banks are able to pay back TARP money in record time. Well, one way is to buy treasury bonds, which are a guaranteed up to 4% return. Even the two year bond yields .55%. So they can borrow money at .5%, use it to buy bonds for a modest return will little work on the part of the bank.

Let's face it though, it is just a conspiracy theory right? And lest we forget, failure at one's job is a resume enhancement in Washington, so all this is just business as usual right? It is all just a coincidence that with Bernanke in charge and keeping Fed rates low, banks are making bank (so to speak) while the rest of us continue to suffer, right? Right?

So, in an act of defiance to the Democrat agenda, Tom Coburn uses a parliamentary procedure and has a single 700+ page amendment read aloud on the Senate floor. Imagine! Reading a piece of legislation that will effect the lives of millions of American's health care and pocket books. Such defiance!

The amendment was offered by Vermont Independent (self-described Socialist) Bernard Sanders. His amendment's :

aim was to establish a single-payer, or government-run, health care system in the United States. Under Sanders' amendment, the nation's Medicare program would be extended to every U.S. citizen.

After about an hour of reading, Sanders pulled the amendment, thus stopping the reading.

So let me get this straight. All we have to do is read the stuff Democrats want on the floor of the Senate, and they will pull it? Are the things they offer so horrendous that if they were simply read aloud, that they will make a fast turn about, pull their ideas, and throw them in the trash? Had we known it would be that easy, I image the Tea Party protesters would have just stayed home.

The following post is a response to Rush Limbaugh and his response to a showing of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. Before I get to the letter, I want to set the record straight. I love Rush Limbaugh, and I love SVU. The following is not an attempt to smooth over a school yard bickering between two of my friends, rather I think the episode in question has much more to say about the Left and not much about Right Wing radio talkers.

Most of all, I would invite Rush (and you) to watch the SVU episode and come to your own conclusions.



Dear Rush,

To start out, let me offer Mega Dittos to you and your staff. Regardless of what any might say about you and your show, I am and remain a loyal fan and 24/7 subscriber, but I must take issue with some you mentioned on your show. I would of called in to discuss this with you had I heard you discussing it at the time (your show is an hour behind in the Tulsa, OK area), and even had I gotten through to Snerdley, I probably still wouldn't have gotten through because you only spent so much time on the subject (I have gotten through before only to be let go because you moved on in subjects and it wasn't open line Friday). But, thanks to the internet and your 24/7 email on your website, I hope you still hear what I have to say.

On, your Dec. 14th show, you took the opportunity of a caller referencing an American Thinker piece to lambast the most recent Law and Order: Special Victims Unit's newest episode. I have to admit, that after seeing a few previews, I wasn't sure how I would accept the show, but after watching the entire show, I came away with a different view. Now, it is not often that I disagree with your analysis of an issue, but I believe your thoughts on the SVU episode is a tad baseless as you yourself said you did not watch the show itself. Thought I don't expect you to become a fan of the show, I am hoping that this might clear some things up.

To sum up the episode, Detective "Fin" Tutuola (played by Ice-T) has fall into a investigating a series of child murders. All of these victims turn out to be "anchor babies", and the perp is a nut who is said to have been influenced by a Right-Wing talk host (who carries a cigar around I might add). In the middle of this fight is a bleeding heart, liberal attorney who decides to defend the perp even though the man attacked him at his own law office.

Now the part that you and others are taking offense to is one that I can understand. The liberal attorney (played by John Larroquette) is sitting on a bench with Fin when he mentions that you, Beck, O'Reilly, and others like you are a poison on this society. While I can understand your distaste for this statement, you have to understand who it is coming from. This attorney is a parody of the Left today. Instead of blaming the perpetrator of the murders for the actual evil they were, he builds his entire defense on a TV and/or radio show he watches/listens to. And this is problem with the Left today.

You and others have said that the Left does not view perpetrators of evil through a lens of reality. Instead they seek to blame society or their ideological enemies for the evil they dish out. The defense attorneys of KSM blame America for 9/11; Clinton blames you for Oklahoma City; Obama and the Democrats blame Bush for the current economic recession and Republicans for their inability to keep their own party in line. Never do they look at the actual problem, rather they use the risen problem as a platform to public denounce those they disagree with.

The worst part with this way of thinking is the final outcome that follows, and SVU demonstrated this in the last 10 minutes of the show. John Larroquette's character ends up getting a not guilty verdict for his client. The man who murders three children gets away with it, and the attorney finds this to be a victory. At least for a few seconds. During the momentary celebration, the murderer whispers something inaudible into the attorney's ear. Suddenly his smiling face turns to horror. The show when fast forwards to Fin arriving at the attorney's office with the attorney standing over the dead body of his client. Fin learns that what the murdered whispered into his ear was something like this (paraphrasing): "Thanks for getting me off. Now, I can kill the rest of those kids."

As always, the Left comes to the realization of Evil's existence too late in the game. The problem was not the cigar carrying, talking head that the liberal attorney sought to truly put on trial, the problem was this single extremist murder who used the talking head as an excuse to kill others he didn't like. But by the time the Left realizes it, all other options are exhausted or it is too late for any of them to work.

I can see how one or two lines in the show might have angered yourself and others, but just like your show, listening to only a few lines misses the true message you are trying to get spread. I feel like Law and Order: SVU has fallen victim to this in this case. Not saying they don't attempt to push some political agenda every now and even, but I truly believe that Law and Order as a whole is more about the ups and downs of crime and out legal system, not necessarily a ideological opinion. I hope this cleared things up for you.

Sincerely, your loyal listener and 24/7 subscriber,

Robert

I know this is probably a little late, but the following speech is so important on so many levels. I'll let it speak for itself.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

If you are like me, you have at the top of your head a single, good question. Why isn't this taught in school today? I can remember learning about the history of Thanksgiving in elementary school. It was all pilgrims and Indians around a long table with a large turkey that was oddly cooked to today's standards. I never heard a thing about George Washington or his and Congress's thanks to God for all that had happened during the formation of our country.

Secondly, where is the supposed "separation of church and state" that the Left actively points to to impress their secular agenda on us all? If the founders truly envisioned a society where God played no part, would they really have declared a day of actual Thanksgiving to God? While, I agree with the popular notion that our founders didn't want the church to have a first hand in our country's governance, I doubt they ever intended for God to be completely blotted out of the public sector.

So, during this weekend, take time to thank God for His role in the founding of our country as well as your personal lives.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

At some point, most American's reach a revelation about what they believe and hold dear, and they compare that what is happening in their country. Mine came about 4 years ago a few years before I rejoined the collegiate community. My father and other relatives had always told me about the leftist slant of today's institutions of higher learning, so I felt compelled to discover my own values before someone was given the chance to decide that for me.

During that time, I have seen many lines drawn on both the left and the right. I have seen how both sides attempt to define their own or the opposing sides viewpoints through titles and words--the best example being the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice titles, but oddly enough, there is one defining title that we all seem to use happily use when referring to a segment of the battle of ideologues. That is the Mainstream Media.

The Mainstream Media loosely defines those elements of the media that have the mileage to their resumes to back up their clout. NBC (now MSNBC), CNN, CBS, and newspapers such as The New York Times and the LA Times all fall under the Mainstream Media mantle. Now, why do I bring this up? Well, as you might have guessed, I have a problem with this title.

Now, my problem is not the grouping. God knows that all these institutions belong together. My problem is the classification. When I think "mainstream" news sources, I think of news sources that define or help steer the climate of political debate. Are the before mentioned institutions steering the debate? Are they steering anything at all? I say no.

Let's start simple. I would assume that in order to be effective a news organization would need people to tune in. If no one gets the information, how are they supposed to effect anything? It is no secret that this is the big handicap of the "mainstreamers". Newspapers are failing and loosing ad revenue; cable news organizations are loosing viewers. It is so bad that even the Huffington Post can't ignore the numbers. But, let's face it. There is much more than numbers to look at. Like simple coverage.

Scandals can make or break a political agenda. Watergate destroyed the Nixon administration. Lewinsky severely damaged Clinton. And with media careers being made on the coverage of scandals, you would think that any media outlet would leap at the opportunity to cover one. Not this media. As of today, we have had two major... HUGE scandals that while they are not directly tied to this President, would still be damaging if properly covered. I am speaking of course about the ACORN and Climategate scandals. And who has covered them? Not the "Mainstream" media. You'd be hard pressed to find any talk about Climategate, and even Jon Stewart thought the non-coverage of ACORN was a bit unsettling.

So where are we? The "mainstream" media obviously doesn't want to do their job, and no one wants to listen to what they have to say. Is this what passes for "mainstream" in Obama's America? I think we should redefine them. Whether should call them the "Lamestream Media" as Bernard Goldberg calls them or the "State Controlled Media" as Limbaugh says is up in the air. But mainstream? Not so much.

So, while looking at the wires at Breitbart.com, I came across a poll that says that a majority now support a public option. It showed that 52% of Americans now support a public option. Of course, when it come to any poll, you want to make sure they are legit. And the best way to do this is too look at the methodology.

We have a right to question what polls might say with CBS and others polling more Democrats in order to get a more favorable result for their programs. So, it is only logical that one might see these results as fishy. Especially with other pollers showing much different numbers. So I followed the actual wire and guess what I found... only this:

A picture:



And only what they talk about in the wire:

In the AP-GfK poll, the differently worded questions on the public plan each had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. The poll interviewed 1,502 people from Oct. 29-Nov. 8 with an overall sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Nothing about their methodolgy. Nothing about who they interview; their voter status; or even who they interviewed them. Was it a phone interview or a sit down with random college students from the Stanford campus? I have looked everywhere, and I haven't found it.

Are they hiding the methodology so that people with focus on the results rather than the methods used to get the result they wanted? I don't know. This only fuels the skepticism that the American public has for the media.

So, here we are. Over eight years later after the worst mainland attack in the United States, we find ourselves in a wondrous position. We have the masterminds of the attacks in a military prison. The country and more importantly, the families of the dead have moved on with their lives while still holding to the memory of those taken of them. Everything is relatively kosher for a people who have witnessed one of the world's worst tragedies. That was until today.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that they will be putting the masterminds behind 9/11 on trial in New York City. In the interest of justice, the Obama Administration has decided to take the mad men back to the city the crimes were committed and try them in civilian court.

Now, I ask a question that all of us are probably asking: Why? Why now? Why a civilian trial and not a military tribunal? Why waste the resources at all? They confessed to the crimes (if you can call them that) and requested to be executed. As a prosecutor with a full confession and a perpetrator with the willingness to receive the maximum sentence, this shouldn't even go to trial.

Not to mention the trouble the prosecution will have just taking this to trial. There is no telling how hard it is going to be to find an impartial jury in a city where everyone knows someone who died in those attacks? Let's not forget about the Defense's right to discovery. They are going to have access to undercover agents lists, intelligence reports, classified documents, the list goes on. Any prosecutor in their right mind, especially one that does not wish classified information to fall in the hands of overzealous lawyers, would NOT want this to go to trial.

I question the motives of this decision. Especially the timing of the trial. Four years? It seems odd to me that this president with his extremely ambitious list of things he wants to get done wants nothing of what he wants to get done to take effect until his second term in office. Health care, if passed, won't go into effect until 2013. This grand trial of the mastermind behind 9/11 won't be until 2014?

What are they hiding I wonder?

In a world of the brainwashed American, it is commentary like this that keeps me going.

Well done, Sonja Schmidt. It is becoming more and more obvious that the truly strong, self-respecting women that should be lifted up to role-model status in America call conservatism home. While the weak and dependent are Democrats.

"Damn this age of technology, quick recall, and brain stimulating drugs" is probably on the mind of Nancy Pelosi. A few weeks ago, after Obama released the CIA memos that started this debate on enhanced interrogations, Pelosi took to the microphone and said Congress was never told about the methods Bush and the CIA used. Well, it didn't take too long for the truth to start coming out.

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Who cares, right? Just another politician telling lies to get what she wanted. That is just the game, right?

I am sick beyond cure of these people. Why must we listen to these "leaders" decry the practices of Wall Street as selfish and immoral, while they, themselves, blatantly lie to us when it suits their political agenda?

If this country hopes to recover from this and any future economic mess, we are going to need a good dose of morality from the top, down. We need to step back to those basics that we teach our children and our leaders talk about daily: Don't lie, be nice to others. You know, those Judeo-Christian principles everyone is so glad we were not founded on.

Thank God we have a president that "believe[s] in the power of prayer". Oh... wait.

So it seems like Jeb Bush has joined the populist chorus line that the GOP should shed its conservative, Reagan roots and try to attract moderates. I don't disagree with the premise that the GOP (or any political movement) has to enlist the help of some moderates to get what they want. My disagreement is with the premise of attracting moderates by being moderate!

Let's say you are a media consultant working for a presidential campaign. Your client asks you to make a commercial geared toward moderates. What would your commercial be? What issues do moderates care about? As a matter of fact, what do moderates think about certain issues? Let me make it simpler. What would a commercial about health care say in order to attract moderates? In short, nothing.

That is because moderates--by definition--have no opinion! This is why 90% of the ads for presidential and other political candidates are negative. They are trying to attract moderates. A candidate doesn't want to say what his positions are on an issue, because it might offend someone with moderate tendencies--which are neutral in nature. Instead, the candidate attacks his opponents extremist side to point out the non-moderate nature of their opponent. It is a vicious back and forth of "I'm moderate and he's not" that is modern politics.

The fact is, you can not attract moderates by being moderate. There is nothing attractive about being moderate. A moderate presidential candidate seems weak and indecisive. They seem out of touch and favors the status quo.

Look at John McCain. Last election, the GOP nominated the most moderate and bi-partisan individual they had to offer. And he lost! He didn't attract moderates. He repelled them. To them, he seemed weak and unfit for the job. The economic crisis showed these moderates that they didn't want a man of moderation. They wanted a man of action! They wanted someone who was going to take big steps to fix the economy and fix Washington. Basically, they wanted an extremist!!!!

There is only one way to attract moderates, and that is the way Reagan did it. He did it by being conservative. He said, "this is what I stand for." And the moderates like it. They liked it so much, he won with forty-nine state landslides and elected him twice. Be conservative and Moderates will come. If they don't, either they don't get the message, or they are not moderate.

I typically don't post about something until after the story breaks. It gives me time to clear out any off-the-cuff emotional responses I might have and gives me time to think. I try to only blog in a manner that exhibits thought instead of pure emotion. This is not going to be one of those posts.

Sen. Arlen Specter (W-PA) (stick with me and you'll find out what the 'W' stands for) has switched parties from the Republicans to the Democrats, giving the Dems 59 seats in the Senate. The fate of the filibuster proof Senate now rests in the hands of that partisan jackass Al Franken. What a country, right?

Many people are thinking that signals the end of the Republican party. Or a sign that the Republicans are no longer big tent enough to win elections. As Olympia Snowe (R-MA) puts it, "it would be even sadder if we failed to confront and learn from the devaluation of diversity within the party that contributed to his defection." Before we get to Specter, let me tackle this first.

The idea that the Republican party is closed off to dissenting voices is absurd. The Democrats are just as closed to opinion on the right as the Republicans might be to the left. Let's face it, Republicans have more pro-choice and open-borders advocates with a voice than the Dems have pro-life and closed-borders. Name for me the last Democratic presidential candidate that was pro-life? The last to presidential election cycles were a joke on the Democrat side. I watched 7 or 8 people stand on stage and all give the same answers unless they were attacking someone. The creativity of the attacks were the only thing that set each apart from the other.

Arlen Specters swap in parties has nothing to do with any lack of diversity in the party. The fact that he was in the party for so long proofs that there is diversity. Specter switched parties because he is a politician. A calculating, cold, only thinks about himself politician. But worse than that, he is a whore politician (there's the 'W'). Let's look at the politician side first.

Specter stated himself that

The Pennsylvanian said he had decided that 'the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak' in his home state, and that he is 'not prepared' to have his 29-year record in the Senate decided by the the 'jury' of the Republican Party primary.

The "jury"??!? Sir, those jurors, as you call them, are your voters. They elected you to represent them. If they feel you are not representing them in the correct manner, than they have every right to throw you out of office. That is how our system works!!! Perhaps if you worried more about representing those that elected you instead of playing nice with the Washington elite, you wouldn't be in the position. Instead, Specter looks for the easiest road possible to hold his seat.

But that doesn't hold a candle to this. You might be surprised to know that this isn't the first time Specter has done this:



Specter is a whore. He sells himself to highest, political bidder in an effort to further his own career. The man has no principles (what are moderate principles anyway). His services (in this case, his vote) is up for bid to the person or person's willing to give him the most for it.

This man is the sad, but accurate, poster-child for what is wrong with Washington today. Politicians spend more time and effort trying to figure out how to bolster their careers and political futures than doing the job they were sent to Washington to do, represent the people.

So take him, Democrats. As a Libertarian, I couldn't care less. But be forewarned. The minute you spot being profitable for Specter, he is gone. Its happened several times before, it will happen again. Enjoy.

I know you all have been waiting with baited breathe for this, so here it is. The loser's blonde, trust-fund daughter comes out with her plan for the Republicans to turn the youth vote around and potentially save the Republican Party.

It may be satire, but all comedy must have an element of truth in it in order to be funny. Right?

Los Angles should be on their knees thanking God that George W. Bush was in office in 2003 and not Obama. The Washington Post has released a story saying that after waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, they received information that allowed them to break up another attack. I'll just post a few quotes from the article. It is quite good.

"Soon, you will know." That is the ominous statement an uncooperative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, told his CIA interrogators when they initially asked him - after he had been captured - about additional planned al Qaeda attacks on the United States

...

As CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo explained in a 2004 letter to then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the CIA would only resort to waterboarding a top al Qaeda leader when the agency had "credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent,"

...

"Both KSM and Zubaydah had 'expressed their belief that the general U.S. population was "weak," lacked resilience and would be unable to "do what was necessary" to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals,' " the memo says. "Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, he resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon, you will know.' "

After he was waterboarded, KSM provided the CIA with information that enabled the U.S. government to close down a terror cell already "tasked" with flying a jet into a building in Los Angeles

There are times I wish I had a magic crystal ball that could tell me an alternative reality based on the simplest change in decision making. Today, nearly every liberal in L.A. is apoplectic over the idea that Bush's CIA used waterboarding on anyone. These high and mighty examples of God's finest gifts to humanity would never change their minds on waterboarding based on something as insignificant as their own lives. They would say (in their classic fashion of regurgitating talking points instead of actual thoughts), "If I had to die to save America's morality, I would." After I finished vomiting, I would pull out my crystal ball.

The fact is, Bush can't win here. If he hadn't waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and fouled the plot, the liberals would have cried that Bush was incompetent and couldn't do the most basic job of keeping Americans safe. The fact is, the left can not be pleased when a Republican is in the White House. Even when that Republican is more liberal than conservative. I gave credit to Obama for saving Captain Phillips from the pirates. Why can't the left give credit to Bush for saving multiple American lives?

Lastly, I am sick of liberals getting to set the premise of any political debate. But, I guess I must except it. So, let's apply their premise and logic to what we have learned with this story:

1) Torture never yields any reliable intelligence.

2) Waterboarding gave us reliable intelligence, therefore

3) Waterboarding is not torture.

Did I get that one right?

It has been mere days since President Obama releases CIA memos on their enhanced interrogation techniques. As expected, those on the right are taking exception, and those on the left are foaming with glee. Talk Radio and the right-wing blogs are talking about the disenfranchisement of the CIA operatives and the opening for another attack to occur. Based on the facts given, I would have to agree, but I want to look at this in a different light. A light that might be deemed more wishful thinking than reality, but one that I find more believable when you examine the character of our new president. Simply: He can't be that stupid...

Let's look at why he released them first. Despite your feelings on the interrogation methods used during the Bush years, you have to conclude (if you are intellectually honest) that they worked. We got the information, and we were kept safe. If these interrogation methods worked and they kept us safe, would getting rid of them make us less safe and open up the possibility for another attack? Obama has to know this, so why release them? Only two reasons come to mind: he's either trying to help the enemy (which I don't believe) or he is trying to make his political base happy.

For years, the base of the Democrat party have held rallies and protests against the CIA methods of the Bush years. Now that Obama is president, they thought things would change. Troops pulled out of Iraq, Gitmo closed, and the Patriot Act repealed. Oh how they were wrong. Instead, Obama is keeping troops in Iraq, keeping Gitmo open until he figures out what do with the prisoners (which no one will take), and is strengthening the Patriot Act. Too much longer, and his will start protesting him. Ah, but how easy it is to please the left.

Obama releases CIA memos of past interrogation methods. Now his base can become preoccupied with suing the Bush administration, and believe that Obama really is for change and transparency.

Now, you might be thinking, "Right, he made us less safe to pander to his base!" But did he?

You have to understand something if one wants to truly understand Obama. He is a politician, and he has big plans. In order to do what he wants to do on health care, energy, and other issues, he has to have the backing of the people. His high approval numbers are the main reason the Republicans are weak kneed in opposing him. What would happen if there was another terrorist attack on American soil? What would happen if that attack could be traced back to the release of these memos and his lax in strength on foreign policy? His approval numbers would plummet, Republicans would have ammunition, and American attitude of urgency would shift away from domestic policy back to foreign policy. Leaving Obama's plans in the dust, only to be written about in his post-presidential memoirs.

Obama is a cold, calculating politician. Washington is full of them. The idea that he would risk his political clout and popularity on the chance of a terrorist attack is absurd. He would never risk a speed bump in his plan such as that. So he releases a few memos on past interrogation methods and keeps safety procedures and renditions in place. Everybody has bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Now, I could be giving Obama a lot more credit than he is due. I'll admit it. Maybe this is wishful thinking. But, I just can't believe Obama would risk another attack when he has so much left to do. Take care though American. Cause if I'm wrong.... Well, pray I'm not.

I personally have no problem with any of the McCain's. John McCain was given his shot, and he blew it. But there is one person who is truly getting through this thick skin of mine and starting to get on my last nerves. His daughter, Meghan McCain.

No matter what you think of her, she is trying to actively help the Republican Party. She has gone on several venues saying the Republicans should accept homosexual marriage and pander to as many groups as possible to get their vote (she is particularly in love with the youth vote). Who can blame her? If you believe in something, you should stand up for her. I don't agree with her, but I appreciate her vigor. But does she have the clout?

I had completely forgotten that Meghan McCain had admitted to Alan Colmes in an interview (Hannity not available?) that she had voted for Gore and Kerry in previous elections. Now, I don't care who you vote for, but admitting to voting for the other parties nominee then try to reshape the Republicans? Why should we listen to her? She hurt on her credibility. Well, here's the problem:

Meghan McCain said Tuesday that she voted for Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential race. But McCain, who was born in 1984, was too young to vote in that race.

The fact is, Meghan McCain doesn't give a rat's rear end about the Republican party. She is simply on a one woman crusade to become more excepted by the mainstream media and pals in L.A. (I followed her for a while on Twitter. These were the highlights of her life, far and away). Look at what she's been doing since John's loss. Ever since her father's loss, Meghan McCain has been on every news venue that will waste air time to interview the daughter of the loser. While on these low rating, low content shows, she has taken the opportunity to blame everyone under the sun for her father's loss. It can hardly be blamed on her. She is just doing what every Republican has been doing for the last few years. Trying to become excepted by those that control the mainstream media: liberals.

Don't believe me? Look at who she has been criticizing. Has it been Democrats, liberals, television or print media, or her own father? Nope. The only people she has blamed are those that have carried the Republicans to success in previous elections, Conservatives and Talk Radio. The same people that those in the media and pop culture view as the enemy.

She might not know it, but she has become the perfect metaphor for the Republican Party. Running around from media outlet to media outlet without any coherent message. Their only quest is a never ending hide-and-seek of looking for acceptance from the very people that are trying to tear them down. It is sickening to watch.

Edit: Looks like I am not the only person tired of Meghan McCain.

Welp, it happened. Not three days after posting about my displeasure with the direction of 24, this happens:



I tried. I really didn't want to abandon one of the last television shows I enjoy watching, but I can't do it anymore. There is nothing more to say except to Garofalo herself.

Typically, I would try to set her straight in an act of charity to the human race. Having such a skanked up, washed out piece of gutter trash with a sense of fashion stuck in the 1960's and a debate mentality stuck that the average kindergartner could strike down free and wondering the streets hurts all of humanity. Especially when that person is given camera access on many of the increasingly less popular cable shows. So, I find myself attempting to educate and set them straight before they pull the entire world into that hollow, black emptiness of space that an average intellect should occupy. Unfortunately, for Garofalo, I got nothing.

We all know she has no factual information to base her opinions on. She is simply using the consistently recycled, left wing method of ending dissent. A tactic so old, it's usage by Garofalo probably outnumbers her lifetime usage of soap. I'm talking, of course, about the "you're a racist" comment. For decades, the left has used this tactic to shut up dissent where ever they find it and deem it appropriate (they do try to at least fit it in situations where it will make sense).

Unfortunately for the left, this is obviously not a viable tactic anymore. You really think the participators of the tea parties didn't know they might be portrayed this way? Admittedly, we hope for a little more creativity and effort from whose like Garofalo, but we knew what was coming. We knew it would be used before Obama was elected to help push his agenda, and we knew it would be used now. But like a virus whose only treatment is a single antibiotic, we have evolved.

The tea party protesters are angry. Angry over spending, misrepresentation, over bailouts. We think this needs to stop. Calling us racists and stupid is not going to weaken our resolve or change our minds. Garofalo might care what others think of her, but we don't. Lying about us and misrepresenting us will only make us angrier and strengthen our resolve. Yes, that is right, Janeane. Your stupidity makes us stronger.

BTW: Like most on the left, I find it very telling to see Garofalo's opinion on dissent change the instant she gets her guy into office.

Everyone knows of Oprah and Michael J. Fox's advocacy of embryonic stem cell research. Well, here is a video of Dr. Oz, a highly respected American doctor from Columbia Institute, lays out a bomb shell to the two on a recent Oprah Show. Basically... the debate is over.

Two things of note before you watch the video. One, look at their faces as Dr. Oz explains this to them (you can tell they are just shocked and have no idea what is going on). And two, notice what Dr. Oz says could have happened if stem cells had been injected (hint: it starts with a 'c').

There are very few television shows I enjoy watching enough to be sure I am in front of the TV for each episode. Not much comes out of the left wing paradise of L.A. and Hollywood twists my fancy and sparks my intrigue. As a matter of fact, to me, Hollywood has so little talent to point to that the most profitable movies are either recycled 1980's memorabilia (Transformers, Indiana Jones) or comic books (300, Watchmen). Network television is the only place originality and true creativity can be found. And there are only two shows that I truly enjoy: House and 24.

I have been a 24 fan ever since my dad introduced me to the series 3 years ago. The iconic American cowboy doing what he has to do to defend his country and it's people from the threat of terrorism. Regardless of whether or not Washington and it's suits agree with his methods, Jack Bauer is going to do what he has to to protect everyone around him. This is the type of man I want protecting me and my family. But, this past season has started to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

It seems that the show has taken a sharp turn off stage left. The show has taken up a personal crusade against Global Warming, pitted private security companies as the enemy of the show. They even went so far as to cast the left wing radio bomb out and D-lister Janeane Garofalo who has no credible acting talents worth mentioning (trust me, I looked). All of this pales in comparison to what almost pushed me over the edge.

Now, I unfortunately can't make every episode. Sometimes school, work, my writing, or my wife just seem to take precedent over a TV show, but something Glenn Beck said on one of his radio shows caused me to go back and find the episode on hulu. NOTE: Spoiler Alert!! Skip the next paragraph if you don't want to spoil anything.

In case you haven't seen it, the antagonist of this season  is private security company Starkwood (oddly similar to Blackwater, wouldn't you say?). In true cliche fashion, the real trouble begins when Starkwood gets ahold of some biological weapons. Through a series of twists and turns, Jack is exposed to the biological agent. After talking to an FBI doctor, she tells him about an experimental treatment using.... wait for it.... Stem cells.

Now I don't really take issue with stem cells per say. Rather my bias is against embryonic stem cell. The stem cells the doctor of 24 referred to were adult stem cells (much like bone marrow transplant) which show much more promise than embryonic stem cells. So, while 24 might be slowly liberalizing its message, they are not quite there yet, but this did make me realize that I have subconsciously put 24 on notice. I was ready to write 24 off after hearing Beck talk about it. Luckily for them, I am known for formulating my own opinions instead of relying on someone else's.

So be warned 24. You are on notice. Your popularity and success was founded on your portrayal of reality. That evil does exist, and the best way to deal with it is to obliterate it. Not bargain and talk to it. If Jack Bauer talks appeasing and playing nice, you are going to loose your audience. But then again, it wouldn't be a surprise if it did happen. I forgot to mention one Hollywood's true talents... taking good, original ideas and, like a fabled anti-alchemist, turn the gold into crap.