What is the Cloward-Piven Strategy?

If you think the latest attempts at reviving the economy through the politician stimulation plan (a.k.a. the stimulus bill) and the mortgage plan make President Obama and Congress look like total doofuses, then you are looking at their activities through the wrong lens. See, you are thinking only of your own self-interest, and not of the politicians' self-interest. They know exactly what they are doing.

If you've never heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, it's worth reading. This is all organized chaos, and happening according to plan.

Hmm...

Looks tantalizing...doesn't it!

How to get that day off work...hmm....

Change You Can Count On Not Happening

Last week, Marie and I stopped into our local second amendment support center and picked up some new hardware. The gal assisting us happened to be the owner of the business, and spoke freely about anything and everything. (She was very helpful, too.)

She started talking about how both Bush and Obama blew it. If they really wanted to help the economy, they could have taxed guns and ammo an additional 5%, and they would be in tall cotton. I thought she had a good point there. Not that I liked it, but that it was a good point.

On the way home, Marie and I started talking about this. We came to the conclusion it would never happen. Why, you ask? That's easy: Democrats and RINO's would never, ever formally admit that the gun industry is a significant part of the consumer economy, and would never knowingly support it by depending on taxes from it. That would be like a Christian knowingly and purposely supporting the porn industry.

So, instead, Obama will increase regulations on things like foreign manufactured guns and ammo, and put wholesalers and American manufacturers in a position of not keeping up with demand. If you haven't heard yet...yes, that is the plan. That way, Obama can say he will defend the Second Amendment but still eradicate our ability to use the arms we now own.

I'm Voting for Pedro

No, this isn't live blogging at the Presidential debate. The debate would have to be a living event, attended by living beings for that to happen. These two characters can't hold a candle to watching paint dry. Heck, if they are not careful, they might motivate me to login and do some work for my office tonight.

I walked away from the TV less than ten minutes into the debate. I've been listening from in front of the pc ever since. Multi-tasking is keeping me from going insane.

I could barely sit all the way through Napoleon Dynamite. But this debate makes it look like an Oscar winner.

A commenter on Michelle Malkin's site said this debate sounds like listening to Charlie Brown's parents. I had thought the exact same thing a couple minutes before reading the comment.

My comments:

• Neither of these opponents can stray beyond their company line.
• Politics without competition sucks. When you get good and have no competition, you play it safe. Both competitors are playing it safe. Which sucks.
• The effeminization of our federal government is complete.
  
• I'm voting for Pedro. At least he'll make all my dreams come true: I could ignore him, and not worry about the government doing ANYTHING to destroy my family.

Fantasy Land

In my dreams, it's still the same
Your love is strong, it still remains
In my dreams, you're still by me
Just the way it used to be
-- Dokken, In My Dreams

My dream candidate for POTUS is not Sarah Palin. It's definitely not John McCain, Barack Obama or Joe Biden. It may not even be Alan Keyes, Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr.

So who is my dream candidate? What qualities do they possess?

Instead of putting it in terms of "qualities", let me put it in the frame of a response to a debate question:

Candidate "X", how can the American people trust you to reach across the aisle and put your differences aside?

Why, thank you for asking, Mr./Ms. Moderator, I have been hoping you would ask me that question. I think there is a lot to the question, and I will do my best to answer it within the two minute time frame.

Since 1980, Democrats have held the Senate majority for 2 years, the House majority for 6 years, and full Congressional majority for 10 years. Conversely, Republicans held the Senate for 6 years, the House for 2 years, and both for 10 years. Oddly enough, over the last 28 years, Democrats and Republicans have both held or shared control of the legislature for 18 years. You can see that both parties share in the creation of the problems over this period of time.

Now, to the question: "reaching across the aisle" is a myth that is meant to sound as though you are talking about compromise. But let's look at who is asked to "reach across the aisle". In my years of political experience, it is only the Republicans - and more specifically, conservatives - who are asked, and practically demanded, to reach across the aisle. Conversely, Democrats and liberals treat the aisle as though it's some type of invisible fence; should they cross it, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, and maybe even death. (smile)

So let's take off the blinders, and say what this really means: "Reaching across the aisle" is a call for conservatives to give up on their beliefs and ideals in order to write law that benefits Democrats and liberals. While Democrats continue to judge conservatives by their own values and call them on their indiscretions when they occur, Democrats are never called out on theirs, or called upon to compromise and sacrifice their beliefs and ideals for the good of the country. Shame on the Republicans for letting them get away with this! And shame on the Democrats for putting party over country!

As of today, right now, the term "reaching across the aisle" died. I will play by the same play book the Democrats do. If they want compromise, they can walk into the aisle just as easily as I can, but I will not reach across the aisle any more than they currently do.

And then, the response to a second debate question:

Candidate "X", what will you do to work with Congress and make progress on behalf of the American people?

That is another great question that I am excited to answer. On behalf of the American people, I would not work with Congress. As defined in the articles of our great Constitution, which I, on inauguration day, will promise to uphold and defend, I will work to fulfill the responsibilities of my office. My expectation would be that the 535 members of Congress would do the same. We will do no more, and no less, otherwise we would be abusing the powers and duties granted to us in the Constitution.

What does that mean? It means that it is the legislature's responsibility to create bills that they deem appropriate for the country. When I believe Congress gets it right, I will sign those bills into law. And, when I believe Congress gets it wrong, I am to veto those bills. And if Congress disagrees with my veto, then they have the ability by super majority vote to override my veto. These checks and balances were created so that the federal government doesn't become some type of super power, meant to be taken over by two political parties or special interests.

See, this isn't about how well the President and Congress work together. That plays to our desire to get along, but doesn't lead to good government. This is about performing our duties and obligations as stated in the Constitution. So I will not work with Congress, and I will not expect them to work with me. I will expect that they will do what they are required to do by the Constitution, and nothing more, and that I will do the same.

The candidate who answers those two questions in this manner will be my dream candidate. That would prove country over party, regardless of the party.

I can dream, can't I?

(And doesn't George Lynch play a wicked solo on the song at the link?)

Party in power facts taken from here.

Obama? Left-leaning?

Whatever you've heard or know, I think you are wrong. You need to read this.

For my e-mail friends who think Obama is a bit left of center, they'll be receiving this article so they can see that they are wrong.