Ed Officially Leaves The Republican Party As Its Leadership Capitulates To Tyranny Once Again

Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile; so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.” – Ronald Reagan

.
……….

To whom it may concern,

Just as I predicted, the cowardly, unprincipled leadership of the Republican party has surrendered to Obama and his gaggle of socialist parasites after less than three weeks of pretending to take a stand against Obamacare. For this reason I will be unregistering as a member of the Republican party as soon as possible and sending email announcements of my decision to every GOP member of the House and Senate, as well as to the party’s chairman, Reince Priebus.

As Ronald Reagan said in 1962 upon formally embracing the Goldwater conservative movement, “I didn’t leave the Democratic party. The party left me.” This is exactly how I feel today with respect to the GOP, however, I have no intention of joining any other political organization in its place. And while I will continue to support truly conservative candidates like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Trey Gowdy in the future, I’ll never give another thin dime to the GOP or any affiliated group. That once noble party is dead to me now.

Sincerely,

Edward L. Daley – Independent

.

*VIDEO* Benghazi Calling – By Edward L. Daley


.

When I Was A Kid: Reflections Of A 50-Year-Old American (Edward L. Daley)

When I was a kid…

If you mouthed off to an adult – even a teacher in school – you’d more than likely get the taste slapped out of your mouth, and anybody who saw you get smacked would assume you had it coming.

Doctors made house calls, and they were usually paid in cash for that service.

Boosting a kid’s self-esteem was maybe the last thing any teacher cared about. Forcing their students to study and get good grades was the top priority, and accomplishing that goal naturally led to kids feeling better about themselves.

Climate change was a concept we were keenly aware of, although, back then we just called it weather.

Black folks were called blacks, colored people or negroes by most whites and blacks alike. There was no such thing as an African-American. Even immigrants from Africa who had passed their citizenship tests weren’t called African-Americans, they were just Americans like the rest of us.

There wasn’t a single kid in my school who couldn’t read, write, do basic math or recite the Pledge of Allegiance by the time they were eight years old… not one.

The word gay just meant cheerful.

Wearing a helmet while riding your bike was far more dangerous than not wearing one, because if other kids saw you in sissy gear like that, they’d beat the crap out of you.

Israelis were known as the survivors of the worst genocide in modern history, and Palestinians were thought of as just a bunch of Arab Nazis pretending to be the victims of Jewish tyranny.

A rich person was somebody you aspired to be like, not somebody you sought to punish.

Communism was an almost treasonous concept that only doped-up, America-hating hippies experimented with.

Every classroom in my grammar school had a Christmas tree in it at Christmas time, and if any parent had complained and tried to force us to remove them, that person’s car would have ended up with sugar in its gas tank, a busted windshield, four flat tires and the words ‘Merry Christmas’ spray-painted on its hood.

Our heroes were people like George Washington, Neil Armstrong, Mother Teresa, Thomas Edison, Amelia Earhart, Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony, General George S. Patton and Albert Einstein.

We understood that the Vietnam War wasn’t lost by U.S. military forces, it was lost by incompetent politicians in Washington DC.

Only wimps played tee-ball.

Most folks had home computers, although they were more commonly known as calculators.

After school, on weekends and during the summer months – unless the weather was particularly bad – kids could be found outside playing with their friends. We didn’t hang around inside, watching TV or playing board games before dinner, and even if we’d wanted to do that, our parents would have forbade it.

Most black voters were Republicans.

Popular music was incredibly diverse, and most performers knew how to play instruments, compose complex melodies and lyrics, and sing entire songs without proving to their audiences that some notes can, indeed, be strangled to death.

Able-bodied people who received public assistance were pitied by other folks, and most of them felt shame for allowing themselves to become dependent on the government for their sustenance.

Nobody played any game just for the fun of it. That’s why we always kept score. If you weren’t playing to win, the game was pointless.

If you saw a grown man cry, it was probably because either his mother or his dog had just died.

It was mostly Europeans who thought of Hitler’s Nazi party as a right-wing political movement. Americans generally understood what the term National Socialist implied.

Reality TV shows included Mutual Of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, Candid Camera and The Undersea World Of Jacques Cousteau.

We didn’t need government warming labels on everything. We knew that electrical appliances were dangerous if used improperly, that smoking was bad for you, that swallowing things like marbles and those little, plastic, toy soldiers could choke you to death, and that placing a scalding hot cup of coffee between your thighs while riding in a car was as good a way as any of proving to emergency room staff just how freakin’ stupid some people can be.

Books were more popular than food stamps.

Respect was something that your parents were entitled to, your friends earned, and politicians pretended they deserved.

Gas station attendants didn’t just take your money, they pumped your gas, washed your windshield, checked your oil level and even applied a pressure gauge to your tires if you asked them to. And their service didn’t cost you a penny extra.

Only teenage boys bragged to their friends about having sex, especially when they hadn’t. Most teenage girls denied that they’d had sex, especially when they had.

Heavy drinkers didn’t have a disease, they simply lacked self-control. Diseases were things you had no control over.

A liberal was an open-minded, intellectually honest individual who looked at all sides of an issue before arriving at a thoughtful conclusion, not a scatterbrained, reactionary jackass whose natural inclination was to spout socialist theory as a default position on practically every topic.

Everybody who was born in America was a native American.

Men were builders, risk-takers, hunters, warriors, protectors and heads of their households. Women were refiners, nesters, nurturers, teachers and disciplinarians who were usually willing to let their male counterparts delude themselves into thinking that men were the heads of their households.

Most folks understood the difference between discrimination and bigotry.

Marriage was an institution that a man and a woman entered into when they wanted to exhibit their commitment to one another, their willingness to accept adult responsibilities, and their desire to legitimize their offspring. It had nothing to do with making a political point.

Teenagers bringing guns to their high schools was commonplace – especially during hunting season – and anyone who complained about such a thing was generally considered a nutcase.

Illegal aliens were called illegal aliens by practically everyone, because that term best described foreigners who’d snuck into our country in defiance of our laws.

The greatest movie ever made was The Great Escape.

On the scale of human trustworthiness, the vast majority of politicians fell somewhere between used car salesmen and coke whores. In fact, the only people who ever exhibited any level of trust in politicians were the people who had enough money to buy them off.

Plumbers were more respected than Harvard law students.

My friends and I genuinely cared about nature because we spent a lot of time hanging out in it. We went into the woods and built forts, fished in streams, and made campfires, employing the lessons we’d learned in the Boy Scouts and from studying American Indian cultures. We respected nature because we knew what nature really was; a hostile, unforgiving place that would kill you if you didn’t know your way around it. We loved the challenge of the wilderness, and soldiering through it made us appreciate our cushy home lives all the more.

Making fun of other kids or calling them names – while generally frowned upon – wasn’t considered bullying. A bully was a guy who punched you in the head and took your lunch money.

The President of the United States wasn’t a father figure to anybody but his own kids.

Mainstream news reporters were pretty much the same sort of biased, dim-witted, arrogant, assclowns that they are today, only we didn’t have the internet at our disposal to easily prove just how unreliable they were.

Video games were things you played at arcades, unless you were lucky enough to get an Atari Pong console for Christmas.

Abortion wasn’t a privacy issue, it was a moral issue, and people who committed abortions weren’t “pro-choice”, they were baby killers.

The application of oil and its byproducts to run machinery and generate electricity was widely understood to be as important to the advancement of human civilization as the discovery and utilization of fire, the practices of cultivating crops and breeding livestock, and the development of a written language.

Nobody I knew gave half a damn what people in other countries thought about anything.

Concepts like honor, integrity, courage and chivalry were alive and well.

The United States of America was the greatest nation in the history of the world, bar none, and just about every American school kid knew why. Our brilliantly conceived Constitution, Judeo-Christian ethic, free market economic system, adherence to the rule of law and willingness to embrace people from every culture on Earth made us great, and we were conspicuously proud of that fact.

By Edward L. Daley

3 Reasons Why Romney Won The First Presidential Debate – Edward L. Daley

1. This particular debate was remarkably substantive. Most political debates are as much about the candidates taking relatively shallow jabs at one another – in between spouting canned talking points – as they are about sharing verifiable facts and figures with the voting public. This one was unique in that intentionally distracting, empty campaign rhetoric took a back seat to the more meaty issues on most Americans’ minds these days. As anyone who has paid attention to President Obama over the past few years knows, rhetorical flair is his strong suit, not straightforward, businesslike conversing of the sort that Governor Romney engaged in throughout the evening. Surprising;y enough, I credit moderator Jim Lehrer with having the good sense to ask relevant questions instead of mindless, MSNBC-esque questions that make people like Chris Matthews tingle.

2. Obama is a Democrat and, therefore, he is rarely forced to answer tough questions with any specificity. Romney, on the other hand, is a Republican which means he can’t comment on the weather without having to explain to a generally hostile news media why his thoughts on snow don’t make him anti-southern… and therefore anti-black… and therefore a racist. He’s prepared 24/7 for the kind of mindless sucker-punches that Obama and his ilk routinely throw at right-leaning politicians. Suffice it to say that he knows how to turn a clever-sounding cheap shot around on his oponent in a way that minimizes its effectiveness. Obama has almost no experience in this regard, and it shows.

3. There is virtually nothing about Obama’s economic record that isn’t painful and depressing. The job of an incumbent politician is primarily to tout his successes while glossing over his failures, but when failures are all you’ve got to work with, you begin to run out of sugar-coating after a while. As the challenger, it’s your job to hammer the incumbent over his failures while playing up your own successes at the most opportune times. Romney walked into a situation that was tailor-made for a competent contender, and he exploited the situation masterfully. Indeed, not only was Mitt able to call the president out on his various false claims, but he managed to do so while simultaneously showing respect for both the man and his office.

In the final analysis, Mitt Romney would had to have been fairly incompetent not to win at least a marginal victory over Barack Obama in this first debate, yet, since he has now proved beyond all doubt that he is anything but incompetent, there is no reason to expect that he won’t win the next two debates just as handily as he did this one. After all, Obama’s foreign policy record is at least as troubling as his domestic record, something that I didn’t think was even possible until I saw the way our Commander in Chief handled the recent terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. And although a former Massachusetts governor can hardly claim to be as experienced in foreign affairs as a sitting president, I think most people would agree that it’s better to have a good plan and limited experience than an incoherent plan and more bad experiences the world over than any single, western nation deserves.

Don’t Abandon The GOP, Grow A Pair And Take It Back!

By Edward L. Daley

When you figure in the $85 million million (aka trillion) worth of unfunded liabilities from Social Security and Medicare, the total debt amassed by the federal government of the United States comes to about $100 million million, give or take a few million million. That number is equate to roughly seven times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of our country. In fact, if we were to liquidate all of America’s assets today for cold, hard cash – in an effort to meet the obligations of just those two programs – Social Security and Medicare would still be about $10 million million in the red.

Think about that for a minute. If our federal government seized everything of monetary value in our country, and used those assets to make good on the promises its made to America’s elderly, disabled and poverty-stricken citizens, it would still find itself in greater debt than most nations on Earth.

Now consider this: Social Security and Medicare spending currently accounts for nearly half of all federal spending, yet even though we devote more money to these programs than most of our other budget items combined, we still find ourselves facing a real debt number (not that puny $15 million million the mainstream media keeps babbling about) so massive that the combined GDPs of every other country in the world – roughly $55 million million dollars – equal only a little over half of it.

Let me put that another way. If every nation on this planet pooled together all the wealth they produced in a year’s time and gave every penny of it to the United States, we’d still end up roughly $45 million million in the hole. To give you an idea of how much money that is, here’s a little visualization exercise for you. Imagine you were to stand forty-five million million dollar bills end to end. If it were possible to do so, they would stretch from the Earth to the moon and back approximately nine thousand times.

Now that you’ve got that image in your head – a wall of greenbacks eighteen thousand bills wide, stretching into space to a point so distant that you can’t see the end of it – go ahead and double that amount, and then add another four thousand dollar-wide section to that imaginary money wall for good measure. THAT is our national debt; a wall of singles well over a mile and a half wide, and nearly 239.000 miles high.

If that mental image doesn’t convince you that the people currently in charge of our federal government are so monstrously inept that they shouldn’t be allowed to manage an ‘Orange Julius’ stand – let alone the budget of the United States – then I’m afraid nothing else you’ll read in this article will be of any use to you. I suggest you move on immediately to more pressing endeavors, like… say… staring at small, shiny objects, but whatever you decide to do, please accept my humble apologies for interrupting medication time at the home.

Okay, so now that I’ve whittled down my readership to only those individuals with a firm grasp on reality, let me see if I can adequately summarize my previous assertions in a single sentence.

Our federal debt is really, REALLY big, and our representatives in Washington DC are really, REALLY incompetent.

Moving on…

Glenn Beck, the prominent radio (and former TV) talk show host, has stated on numerous occasions that the only difference between the DNC and RNC is that the latter party is taking our country down the road to statism and, ultimately, economic collapse at a slower pace than the former. And in a way he’s right. The leaders of these two political groups are fairly similar in that few if any of them seem to give a rat’s pucker about future generations of Americans, and the socio-economic hell they face as a result of this generation’s utter lack of fiscal responsibility.

That having been said, Mr. Beck – if, indeed, that is his real name – has failed time and time again to point out that the overwhelming majority of conservatives who constitute the foundation of the Republican party, strenuously oppose the out-of-control spending practices of our elected representatives. He also doesn’t bother to mention that the vast majority of leftists who comprise the Democrat party’s base, exhibit exactly ZERO interest in restraining the growth and irresponsible budgetary habits of our federal government.

As a matter of fact, today’s leftists wholeheartedly support the insane (yes, I said INSANE) increases in spending that the current administration has already inflicted upon our nation, and apparently wishes to double as soon as possible. What’s their primary justification for this endorsement? Well, the Republicans increased spending over the past eight years by more than $4 million million, so now that the Democrat party is in charge, it gets to spend at least double what George W. Bush did on thousands of fatuous, government programs, idiotic make-work schemes and more freedom-smothering, federal bureaucracies than ever before. NEENER NEENER NEE-NER!

Tell me, is any part of what I just wrote inaccurate?

Okay, so maybe that “NEENER NEENER NEE-NER!” thing was a little over the top, but still…

Is there any doubt that the notion of expanding the scope and authority of the federal government originated with the left in this country, or that its subsequent growth momentum has been fueled by the “progressive” movement ever since?

Wacky, yet impassioned Glenn – the self-proclaimed “rodeo clown” and outspoken critic of government waste, fraud and abuse – seems to believe that we can just ignore the two main political parties in this country on election day and come together as a nation of independent voters to solve the myriad problems we face. Talk about naiveté! Regardless of how independent-minded one may be, if disseminating throughout the federal establishment the conservative ideals of limited government, personal accountability and fiscal restraint is one’s aim, there’s no viable delivery vehicle available other than the Republican party. After all, that’s where the overwhelming number of politically active right-wingers reside today, and to abandon it at this point in history is akin to calling for the forces of conservatism to further fragment in the face of an aggressive and unified leftist front.

If he were a soldier in General George S. Patton’s army, Private Beck would likely be relegated to the position of chief latrine scrubber for merely suggesting so foolish a strategic battle plan. Suffice it to say that no political ideology can be advanced in the United States without the assistance of an organized party of substantial wealth and influence. Independent political candidates don’t win federal elections very often, and the few who do, usually find themselves alone in the wilderness when it comes to garnering support among their peers for their policy initiatives.

Like it or not, changing the culture of irresponsibility and corruption that defines our national government these days, means changing the culture of at least one of the two major parties currently running it, and to accomplish that, one needs to confront the problem from within. It simply cannot be done by standing outside the gates of power, shaking one’s fists and wailing at the gathering storm.

Sure, there are times when large demonstrations by rag-tag coalitions of citizens can make a difference in the way our public officials behave at any given time, and you’ll find no stronger proponent of such peaceful revolts than I. That having been said, truly influential mass protests are rare and their impact fleeting. Lasting change only comes about as the result of a concerted effort among people of like-mind to repeatedly vote into public office, honorable candidates from a common political party who are capable of persuading others within their ranks to do the right thing.

There will always be a certain amount of corruption in any group, however, which is why it’s important to expose and punish as swiftly as possible the bad eggs in one’s own party. For all their flaws, the leaders of the GOP do have some integrity in this regard, whereas Democrat bigwigs are utterly shameless in their repeated defense of demonstrably corrupt leftists.

It’s going to take a lot of hard work to get the Republican party back on its conservative feet again, no question about that, and the transition from a party of wishy-washy RINOs to one controlled by genuine right-wingers, won’t happen overnight. But think about the ramifications if we don’t even try to salvage it. We’ll be stuck with essentially two versions of the same party controlling the political direction of our country for at least a generation to come; one which continues to slide seemingly irrevocably into the cesspool of Marxism, while the other dances precariously on a sheet of thin ice above that same, putrid sewer.

That doesn’t have to happen, Mr. Beck, but if you insist upon preaching the gospel of “to hell with both major parties” to a sizable audience of disenfranchised former GOPers, Libertarians and right-leaning independents, it probably will. If such a tragedy should come to pass, national bankruptcy and severe economic depression is not only probable, but a near certainty.

Indeed, if our nation is to survive the hopey-changey era of President Obama and his left-wing lackeys in Congress, electing vast numbers of true conservative REPUBLICANS to their respective high government offices is the only rational course of action available to us, and it is a course we must embark on sooner rather than later.

Nullification Chatter Escalating, But Could It Actually Happen?

Did you know that nearly half of all U.S. states are run entirely by Republicans? It’s true, there are currently 23 states that have GOP-controlled governments. They are: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

Alaska and Wisconsin have Republican governors and Houses of Representatives, but their Senates are split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. Iowa, as well, has a Republican governor and House, but its Senate is narrowly controlled (26/24) by Democrats.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, of the remaining states only 11 are run completely by Democrats. They are: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.

So what does all this mean? Well, aside from demonstrating that America is a fairly right-leaning nation, what it tells me is this: if every Republican-run state officially rejected the recent Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare and declined to implement the law’s provisions, the federal government might have a very difficult time regaining the upper hand.

After all, when half (if you include Alaska and Wisconsin) of all the states in the union refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a patently illegitimate court ruling, what exactly can the federal government do to compel their compliance, short of declaring actual war on them?

Before I attempt to answer that question, I think it’s important to mention that 13 states have already begun the process of doing what I have just suggested, and remarkably enough, several of them have Democrat governors. Missouri is one such state, and its anti-ObamaCare legislation has recently been affirmed by its legislature’s lower house.

According to Heartlander News:

Legislation declaring President Obama’s health care law null and void in the state of Missouri recently passed in the state’s House of Representatives.

House Bill 1534, which has now moved to the Senate, passed the House 108-44. None of the nays were cast by Republicans.

Cosponsored by Rep. Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis), the bill also states any federal officials attempting to enforce Obamacare may face criminal penalties including jail time.

The other states currently considering ObamaCare nullification bills are: Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Idaho, New Hampshire, South Dakota and North Dakota.

On a related note, Senator Jim DeMint issued a press release shortly after the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision of Thursday last came down. In it he encouraged America’s governors to defy the feds over the issue. A portion of his statement reads as follows:

“I urge every governor to stop implementing the health care exchanges that would help implement the harmful effects of this misguided law. Americans have loudly rejected this federal takeover of health care, and governors should join with the people and reject its implementation.”

Since the release of that statement, Governors Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin have stated publicly that they will not comply with Obama’s health care law regardless of our highest court’s seal of approval.

There’s no telling how many more governors will follow suit, or how many states will ultimately decide to introduce bills banning the implementation of ObamaCare. What we can be sure of is that the mainstream news media will impugn any attempt to thwart Obama’s signature health care law. And when they’re not busy maligning anyone who dares to suggest that states actually have rights, they’ll be telling half truths about the way things can really work in America.

For instance, most journalists like to point out that laws such as the one working its way through the Missouri legislature are really just “symbolic”, because the courts have repeatedly ruled that federal laws trump state laws. While that’s true, what they never bother to tell you is that it doesn’t matter what any court has to say on the subject if the states in question refuse to adhere to that principle. If they don’t, then the federal government must attempt to force them to do so.

Which brings me back to the question of how the leftists in Washington DC might go about doing that.

The simplest and most obvious course of action that the feds could take would be to withhold money from the offending states. The U.S. Census Bureau’s report on federal aid to the states for fiscal year 2010 (the latest figures available) relates that the average amount of cash shelled out by Washington DC per capita was $2,011. That’s a LOT of scratch, and some states – like my home state of Maine – receive considerably more than that.

However, if the feds were to take such an action, the targeted states could retaliate by refusing to allow the IRS to directly collect federal income taxes from their citizens. Since the average American pays roughly $3,000 in individual income taxes, denying the federal government that revenue – or at least an amount equal to that of its withheld aid money – would effectively frustrate DC’s extortion efforts.

But is it possible for states to do that?

According to Patrick Krey, who holds an L.L.M. (masters of law) degree, they can.

A proposed state law entitled State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act, which has already been introduced in three states, would enable the states to interpose themselves between the federal tax collectors and state citizens. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, such “laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people of the state.”

If such a scenario were to play out, it is unclear whether or not the federal government would throw in the towel and forgo its ambitions to force socialized medicine upon a defiant American public. It’s entirely possible that our power-mad president and his Marxist minions inside the beltway would choose to up the ante – so to speak – and although one can only imagine what that might entail, it certainly wouldn’t be conducive to promoting the sort of unity Obama promised he’d bring to America only three and half short years ago.

By Edward L. Daley

Right-Wing Ed Vs. Leftist Jackass – A Reckoning

Herein I shall attempt to respond, paragraph by paragraph, to the idiotic scribblings – titled ‘The Silent Issue That Could Doom President Obama In 2012 Election’ – of one Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News.

He begins:

There will be so many things to talk about with Obama vs. Romney from here to November, but the one that nobody will want to talk about very much in polite society, even in what has a chance to be the meanest presidential campaign for all times, is race.

…nobody except you and practically every other left-leaning political pundit in America, apparently.

It works against the President this time, in a big way.

…just like it worked against him in 2008. [sarcasm off]

Last time, there were just weren’t enough reasons for enough white voters to vote against the black guy, as much as they wanted to. This time there are plenty.

Yeah, last time around white voters only had a white war hero and Sr. Senator to vote for instead of a markedly unqualified Jr. Senator who had admitted publicly only a year prior to running for president that he didn’t have the experience necessary to do so.

And please don’t believe a single poll on this issue.

…because that would completely destroy this leftist narrative.

If there is one great truth about polling in this country, at least when it comes to race, is that people lie through their teeth. Mostly because they don’t want to look like some lousy, scummy bigot – even talking to an anonymous voice on the telephone.

Of course, if most people actually were “lousy, scummy” bigots, they wouldn’t give a crap who knew it. Just ask any skin-head or Black Panther member if they care what people of different colors – or even folks who look like them but don’t embrace their particular belief system – think about anything!

Of course this election will be about the economy, and Obama’s record on it, no matter how much broad-daylight looting of this country went on during the eight years of Bush-Cheney.

And even though there’s been more “broad-daylight looting” perpetrated by the Obama administration over the past three and a half years than during Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, all you damned white voters out there will just keep focusing on the here-and-now, as opposed to the distant past. Shame on you.

You want to know why George W. Bush is still the only living former President with an approval rating under 50%? It isn’t just because of all the Americans killed and wounded in a war built on lies in Iraq. It is also because of the economy Obama inherited from him, one nobody wanted to touch with a stick at the time.

So, we can trust the polls when it comes to gauging what the American public thinks about George W. Bush, but when those same people are polled about the job that Barack H. Obama is doing, that’s obviously just a race-based thing and any polling data relative to it should be dismissed out of hand. Uh-huh.

By the way, there’s a difference between being wrong about something and lying about it, which is a distinction that Mr. Lupica – like most every left-wing political columnists in America – has never bothered to work out intellectually.

As for the assertion that “nobody wanted to touch with a stick” the economy that Bush left behind, if that’s true, how come so many politicians on both sides of the aisle threw their hats into the ring in 2008? It seems to me that plenty of folks were willing to “touch” the economy back then, including Barack Obama himself.

Oh, and I also find it interesting that leftists in this country never mention how Bush inherited a buttload of problems from the Clinton administration, or the fact that the annual unemployment rate remained under six percent throughout all of Dubya’s first term, despite a trillion-plus dollars being sucked out of the economy immediately following the worst terrorist attack in human history… an attack that was visited – for the most part – upon the financial center of the United States, by the way.

Indeed, let us not forget that the average unemployment rate over the entire course of Bush’s presidency was only 5.2 percent. Not bad, considering 9/11, Katrina, the Democrat-caused housing bubble (see Community Reinvestment Act – Clinton-era) and a mostly Democrat-controlled Congress throughout.

Oh, Obama ran against the Bush economy once. But won’t be able to do it again, even though he’s sure going to try. He has to run on his own record this time, on the economy, on jobs. Does Romney have a better plan? He does not. His plan, his platform – and the reason Obama is in huge trouble against him – is as simple as Romney sounds sometimes on the stump:

He’s not Barack Obama in 2012 the way Obama wasn’t Bush in 2008.

Of course Obama will focus on the premise that he inherited a bad economy from George W. Bush. What choice does he have? He certainly can’t talk about his own economic record, because to do so would be to remind average Americans of just how inept he’s been at dealing with… well… EVERYTHING!

Mr. Lupica, you ask if Mitt Romney has a better plan with respect to our economic woes. Then you answer yourself with a resounding “he does not,” yet you fail utterly to back up that claim with any information at all. You simply blurt it out as a child might blurt out an obscenity after stubbing his toe, then you leave it hanging in the air, seemingly in the hopes that it will dissipate before it’s challenged by somebody with an IQ above room temperature.

While I won’t bother – for brevity’s sake – reciting the various aspects of Mr. Romney’s economic scheme at this time, I will at least provide a link (http://www.mittromney.com/jobs) to the page at his campaign website that addresses the issue… which is more than you were willing to do in support of your hollow declaration.

I will give you credit where it’s due, however. When you stated that Romney is not Obama, you were dead-on accurate. Indeed, Mitt is NOT Barack, and though he’s also not as conservative as Ronald Reagan or even Newt Gingrich, he’s clearly not a Marxist either… unlike some people I could name.

“There has only been one real plan from the Republicans, really for the last four years,” Mario Cuomo says. “Get rid of Obama. That’s it. Now they try to convince you that whomever you replace him with will be better, even though that should be an absurdly childish and stupid and perhaps even greedy notion.”

Unfortunately for you and your premise, Mario Cuomo isn’t running for president on the GOP ticket this year, so what he happens to think about anyone’s potential campaign strategy is entirely irrelevant.

Still: This isn’t ’08 for Obama.

That’s because more than three years of reality have a way of trumping the empty promises of even the most charismatic of narcissistic jackasses.

It means he’s not only NOT running against Bush, he is not running against old John McCain, a terrible candidate, or Sarah Palin.

Well, you certainly pegged “old John McCain” there, I’ll give you that. Still, I find it peculiar that evil, racist right-wingers like myself chose not to rally behind him, in spite of the fact that he looks just like us.

When it was over four years ago, even people who didn’t want to vote for a black presidential candidate – but did in the end – congratulated themselves on America finally putting a black man in the White House.

Previously in your article you opined that the racist, white voters permeating American society wouldn’t expose themselves as such to faceless poll-takers because they would feel too ashamed (or something) to admit their bigotry, even to complete strangers… yet when a person votes, they do so under a veil of COMPLETE anonymity. Reprimands, rebukes or reprisals of any kind need not be feared inside a voting booth, so why on Earth would someone who hates black people vote for one?

Oh wait, you must be talking about all those white LEFTISTS in America who pretend to care about the plight of poor, downtrodden African-Americans, but who really don’t give half a damn about anyone except themselves, and only support guys like Barack Obama because it makes them look open-minded to their equally self-absorbed friends.

It won’t work that way this time. Race won’t be the only issue, not in a world of these gas prices, not in an America with this kind of unemployment. But you better believe it will be a huge issue.

Yes, it WILL be a huge issue… to everyone like YOU who made it an issue the first time around, even though practically nobody on the right gave Barack’s skin color a second thought in 2008 and likely never will.

Two things that nobody will want to talk about so much in the months between now and November? Race and Romney’s religion.

I sure hope you’re right about that, because neither of those topics are germane to the election at hand.

But race wins that one every time, first-round knockout, just because race is always the main event in America, no matter how enlightened we like to think we are.

Hold on here… you JUST said that nobody will want to talk much about race or (Romney’s) religion – as if Mitt’s religion was more pertinent than Barack’s – during this election cycle, yet immediately following that statement, you frivolously claimed that the topic of race will inevitably win out over that of religion.

Here’s a question that you may want to ask yourself in the near future, Mike: Do I have any idea how f***ing stupid my opinions sound to rational people?

“You know what race does in this election?” an old Kennedy Democrat I know is saying on Thursday. “It takes Mormonism off the board. Gone, goodbye. So there’s that. And here’s something else that works against the President. Romney’s not picking a bad vice-president. His pick might not be very exciting. But it’s not going to be Palin.”

Well, that was certainly pointless. Ya know, just because a grouping of words technically constitutes a proper paragraph, that doesn’t make it an intellectually VIABLE paragraph.

Just sayin’…

Suddenly Barack Obama, four years later, is an underdog all over again. It is what he was when he took on Hillary Clinton, took on the Clinton machine, in the Democratic primary season of ’08. It is what he is against Romney right now, will be in the fall unless the economy comes back big.

Suddenly? I don’t think so, sparky. There’s nothing sudden about Barack Obama’s decline. It has come about slowly but steadily over forty months’ time, and only pointless Opologists like you have failed to notice that fact.

Maybe he thinks that Romney’s record at Bain Capital can save him, maybe he can rally his base in an election against a poster boy for the 1 percenters in this country like Mitt Romney, whose idea of being a regular guy in a debate is making a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry. And maybe he can save himself in the debates and with speeches, because this is a President who has told people more than once, “Speeches got me here.”

1-percenters? You mean like the President of the United States of America, who flies around the world (at taxpayer expense, no less) whenever he feels like it on the most sophisticated airliner in the world, has dozens of armed guards watching his back 24/7, commands the most awesome military force in human history, and can speak his mind to hundreds of millions of people, on multiple television networks, whenever the mood strikes him? THAT kind of 1-percenter?

Obama got a perfect storm last time: Bush and Cheney and Iraq and the economy crashing and McCain and the lightweight former governor of Alaska. He got people of color and he got kids. Except now the kids that he needs are coming out of college and can’t find jobs.

And they can’t find a job because Barack H. Obama doesn’t know shit about basic, free-market economics, and I seriously doubt that he even cares to learn about such trivialities. After all, when you’re primarily concerned with spending trillions of dollars that don’t belong to you, why would you bother thinking about the crushing debt that average college graduates face as they enter an economic landscape as hostile to them as the Great Depression was to their grandparents?

There were so many reasons to vote for Barack Obama, not nearly enough good reasons not to vote against the first black candidate for President. Not this time.

Ya know, I’m aware of the concept of a double-negative, but I don’t think I’ve ever been exposed to a triple-negative… until now.

Your Daley Gator Slightly Disturbing Black Friday Quote For 2011


“There is no such thing as time. The past is only an idea in the minds of creatures who exist in the now. However, the now cannot exist because as soon as any creature contemplates the now, it has already become the past, which was only an idea to begin with. Moreover, the future hasn’t happened, so to even consider the concept is an act of pure madness.” – Edward L. Daley

Ed Rates The GOP Candidates’ October Debate Performances

Thank God for the most recent Republican primary debate, because without it the so-called journalists of the Jurassic news media would have been forced to waste ALL of Tuesday last talking about those silly, pampered, rich kids of the ‘Occupy… whatever’ movement, while simultaneously overlooking the various impeachable offenses that Barack Obama has committed since taking office.

And the following day, those same stalwart propaganda-knights got to expend a considerable amount of energy telling all of us what we think about the aforementioned debate… as well as glorifying the pointless exploits of those ridiculous, spoiled brats who comprise the ‘Occupy something-or-other’ crusade and, of course, fiercely ignoring the numerous criminal activities of the Obama administration.

But enough of that ugliness. On to my penetrative, insightful and thought-provoking – yet still humble – views concerning the eight GOP presidential candidates who participated in the round-table debate of October 11, 2011.

……………

First off, Newt won the thing. That was clear to anyone who witnessed the spectacle in its entirety. You are free to disagree with me on that score, of course, but keep in mind that if you do you will prove to me that you are very nearly as featherbrained as Joe Biden, and really, what good can come of that?

If you ask me – and what serious person wouldn’t? – Mr. Gingrich proved beyond all doubt that he truly is “the smartest guy in the room,” especially when the only other people in said room are his fellow Republican presidential candidates and a few, self-important Obama apologists disguised as impartial journalists.

Furthermore, he’s the best debater of the lot, and to deny that simple truth is to turn one’s back on all vestiges of reality. Sure, Newt‘s got his negative attributes like everyone else, but when it comes to verbally sparring over the important issues of the day, nobody possesses more general knowledge of those issues, is better prepared and, therefore, is more intellectually intimidating than former Speaker Gingrich.

To borrow from the hipster vernacular of the day, he da man!

Before I continue, I must relate that I can feel the eye-daggers of Ron Paul‘s more virulent supporters piercing my virtual heart at this point, and for the record, you can all bend over and plant a great big, sloppy kiss right on my virtual ass.

Dr. Paul is a perennial loser when it comes to running for President of the United States, and the fact that he’s now older than dirt doesn’t exactly enhance his odds of winning the 2012 Republican nomination.

But I’m getting WAY ahead of myself here.

Rick Santorum did himself a favor by being the most in-your-face participant of Tuesday night’s debate, and although he received the least number of questions throughout the evening, he made the most of the opportunities he had to speak his mind. Sadly, while the former U.S. Senator is a relatively bright individual, he also has the personality of toenail clippings.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with most of the man’s political positions, and I believe that his performance during this event warrants rating him the second-place debater of the evening. However, I get the distinct impression that if Santorum ever managed to laugh out loud, my ears would explode from shock.

Herman Cain, in contrast, is the sort of guy you’d expect to offer up a good belly-laugh every now and again, even in the face of harsh criticism. He’s easily the most affable and seemingly genuine of all the right-wingers currently running for president and, more importantly, he is slowly learning that details matter in a GOP primary race.

Nobody at that Washington Post/Bloomberg-provided table was confronted more harshly, more often or by more people than former CEO Cain, yet he mostly held his own, and it is not insignificant to note that he did so with confidence and composure. That’s why I rate Herman‘s latest debate performance third overall.

Then there’s Michele Bachmann – or as I like to call her, Sarah Palin light – who was much less aggressive than I had expected she’d be. Apparently, somebody on her campaign staff got hold of her before the debate and explained that snippiness is not the most attractive quality in a lady, and that she might want to try accentuating her intellectual side a little more.

Whatever Michele‘s adviser(s) said to her, it worked, because she came off as a bright, business-like, and even marginally cheerful woman for the first time in recent memory. I don’t know if she helped her poll numbers in any substantial way, but at least she didn’t say anything that might cause folks to begin referring to her as the GOP’s ‘Cruella de Vil’, and for that she gets my fourth-place debate ribbon.

Which brings me to Rick Perry. Of the four debates he’s engaged in thus far, this one did the least amount of damage to his crumbling campaign. In other words, Perry didn’t shoot himself in the foot again, but he also didn’t say anything particularly memorable, nor did he appear very presidential throughout the event.

That having been said, there is still time for the Texas governor to get his act together and pull himself out of the hole he’s been digging since the first debate he appeared in. Fortunately for Rick, he didn’t bring a shovel to Tuesday’s debate, so I’ll award him fifth place for at least managing to avoid complete electoral disaster for a while yet.

By now I’m sure that many of my fellow Republicans are asking: hey, where’s Mitt? The answer is: he’s right here in my number six slot. I know that a lot of you are shocked and appalled that I would dare rate former Governor Romney so poorly. After all, he IS the favorite of the GOP elite and the mainstream press alike… plus his hair is to die for.

The problem with Mitt is that, while he is a smooth-talking dude to be sure, over half of the words that come out of his mouth add up to complete bullshit. Few people possess his innate ability to chatter on endlessly while simultaneously saying almost nothing, and although the man is also adept at masking his contempt for honesty with a toothy smile, that’s no reason for me to treat this media-ingratiating bastard like a serious-minded debater.

Now onto the most annoying candidate of the bunch, Ron Paul. What can I say about the good doctor that hasn’t already been used as a punchline in many of the jokes told by actual Republicans since the aged congressman decided to throw his hat into the presidential ring for the umpteenth time? Hmmm… well, there is the fact that he was recently exposed for wearing eyebrow toupees. Really, Ron? REALLY?

Most of Paul‘s diehard fans expected that this debate would amount to his shining moment in the sun once they heard it would be entirely focused on economics. Ironically, that fact proved to be his biggest hurdle, because even most anti-Paul conservatives already agree with the guy generally on economic issues. What people wanted to know was who ELSE has sound fiscal views. As it turns out, several of his fellow GOPers proved to be just as well-versed in the subject as the Texas libertarian, which made him seem largely irrelevant. That’s why Ron Paul ranks seventh in a debate that many folks thought he’d win in a walk.

Last (and yes, least) we come to Jon Huntsman. I suspect that the only reason why this man still gets invited to these debates is because the event planners find even-numbers of people on a stage to be more aesthetically pleasing than otherwise. How else can one explain the continued appearance of this tedious and unpopular dullard at such venues?

I know, his hair is nearly as impeccable as Mitt Romney‘s, but practically everything else about the former Utah Governor screams “assclown” with a capital ASS. All I can say to you, Mr. Huntsman, is please go away. Even Ron Paul thinks you’re a loser, and the only reason you managed to rank eighth in this debate is because Donald Trump decided not to run for president this time around.

By Edward L. Daley (aka DarcPrynce)

My Good Friend Paul A. Ibbetson’s ‘Sister Wives’ Article And My Brilliant Retort – By Edward L. Daley

Sister Wives: The Concubines Of The Cult Of Kody Brown – Paul A. Ibbetson

If you want to see another blatant example of social activism at the expense of traditional marriage, go no further than The Learning Channel (TLC). Part of TLC’s knowledge-enhancing program lineup is the show featuring polygamist Kody Brown and his ever-growing, Utah-based harem of “Sister Wives.” The show is spun as a unique look at a non-traditional family that faces the same struggles as regular folks and manages to make it through life with strong bonds of love and respect. That sounds really nice doesn’t it? The truth of this dysfunctional group and their attempts at TV stardom are much darker, and much more dangerous to traditional American culture.

Researching the Kody Brown clan forced me to delve into the TV program. From doing so I discovered that Kody Brown, a sales and advertising agent, married his first wife Meri conventionally in 1990. Since then, Brown has been collecting and impregnating additional concubines, like Janelle, Christine and Robyn, at a consistent rate. Brown’s women take on his last name, bear his offspring, and work to pay for the cost of the polygamist lifestyle. The show, Sister Wives, despite being given a positive spin, still highlights the cult-like mentality of polygamy groups.

Kody Brown emanates a shyster vibe that is common with manipulators found in cult settings. He preaches to his bedroom cohorts that they are each individually special and respected while at the same time adding new women to his brothel. Even during the two seasons of Sister Wives so far, Kody Brown has decided that three special wives is just not enough, and has added another woman to his collection. What we have here is one serious jive turkey in Kody Brown running some even more serious jive of some impressionable women. However, if we look at Sister Wives more critically, we can access Brown and the layers of hypocrisy in this show more adequately.

Brown’s jive is more clearly seen as a constant manipulation of the women he exploits. Within the Brown polygamy system, he alone receives the carnal benefit of a sexual smorgasbord of duped female lovers, while the women do nothing more than bear and raise his children and sell jelly at the airport. This is truly cult-like activity. It is doubtful that Kody Brown’s cherub-like smile would withstand a request from his stable to bring another man into the love circle. I suspect that would spoil the “specialness” of these marriages.

The next example of hypocrisy that screams to be addressed is the fact that this cult is not behind bars. Utah has anti-polygamy laws and this faction has more than written their confession to the crime of polygamy on national television. Where is the law here? One cult leader, four wives, sixteen children and no legal accountability.

Brent Bozell in NewsBusters adequately shows that Kody Brown and his Sister Wives wish to push polygamy into the mainstream culture and are willing to flout the laws of the land to do so. For them, breaking down traditional marriage is more than potentially circumventing the law; it is an attempt to be accepted into a culture that has traditionally been bound by biblical values on the subject. Sister Wives is nothing less than a counterculture advocacy program that undermines biblical values and promotes sexual perversion.

Lastly, and probably the largest example of hypocrisy is that TLC allows itself to be the vehicle for the dissemination, and the accomplice in the crime of polygamy. There is no rational spin that can be forwarded that will decrease their culpability in this attempt to lead the American culture astray on the values of marriage.

Traditional marriage is the cornerstone of America. The guidelines to this institution are firmly and clearly laid out within God’s law and are in clear opposition to the Sister Wife lifestyle. To deviate from the cornerstone from which American life springs forth is to guarantee social calamity, suffering and pain. It matters not whether the merchants of deviance wish to push gay marriage, adultery, polygamy or any other cleverly altered variation of this kind. We would be wise to fight it, we would be just to defeat it, and we would be blessed to teach our children to do the same.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

A Response To Paul A. Ibbetson’s Article Titled ‘Sister Wives: The Concubines Of The Cult Of Kody Brown’ – Edward L. Daley

Okay, so some of the things I’m going to write herein will probably piss a few people off, but hey, you can’t please everybody… if you could, you’d make Jesus look like one of those silly pop music icons that spring up every few years and then fade into obscurity just as readily.

Suffice it to say that even conservative-minded folks like you (Paul) and I are going to disagree from time to time, and that’s actually a good thing. To paraphrase the famous chewing gum manufacturer, William Wrigley: when two people always agree, one of them is unnecessary.

And so begins my critique of your piece on the subject of ‘Sister Wives’, the Learning Channel and the polygamist culture in general.

In your article, you write: “If you want to see another blatant example of social activism at the expense of traditional marriage, go no further than The Learning Channel (TLC). Part of TLC’s knowledge-enhancing program lineup is the show featuring polygamist Kody Brown and his ever-growing, Utah-based harem of ‘Sister Wives.’”

On this point you’ll get only minimal argument from me. TLC may well be engaging in social activism in this case, although, like most television networks today, it may just as easily be that the folks who run that network are perfectly willing to exploit any situation in order to improve their company’s “bottom line”.

To put it another way, it just might be that TLC is merely a network of ratings whores with no real ideological dog in the ‘marriage wars’ hunt. To be perfectly honest, I don’t watch the network, so I cannot speak authoritatively on TLC’s socio-political leanings or the possible motives of its programming staff. I have seen several episodes of ‘Sister wives’ online, however, and I find it to be a fascinating – if somewhat disturbing – show that I intend to watch again in the near future. Why, you may ask? Well, because I am intrigued by the more twisted and perverse aspects of the human psyche, that’s why. Sue me.

You go on to write: “The show, Sister Wives, despite being given a positive spin, still highlights the cult-like mentality of polygamy groups.”

Now this I agree with wholeheartedly. Indeed, there is a cultish component to the way the women on this program behave with regard to their “husband” Kody, and it carries over to the manner in which their respective children interact with each other and their collective parental unit. That having been said, I find this component to be no more pronounced in the case of the fundamentalist Mormon sect in question, than it is in the more widely accepted religious practices of – say – Jehovah’s Witnesses, Krishnas or Scientologists.

You continue: “Kody Brown emanates a shyster vibe that is common with manipulators found in cult settings. He preaches to his bedroom cohorts that they are each individually special and respected while at the same time adding new women to his brothel.”

Again, I cannot argue with your basic assessment here, yet I feel the need to remind you that this very same “shyster vibe” is also given off by Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Weiner, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and practically every other prominent political figure in the Democrat party today. You’ll note that, as of this moment, the majority of American citizens have failed utterly to criminalize the DNC.

You opine: “It is doubtful that Kody Brown’s cherub-like smile would withstand a request from his stable to bring another man into the love circle. I suspect that would spoil the “specialness” of these marriages.”

Of this I have little doubt. His mentality bares a striking resemblance to that of any male adulterer in the world who routinely makes excuses for his own cheating, yet would likely go ballistic if his poor, suffering wife were to ever have a sexual affair. Still, while a certain amount of hypocrisy does exist in this situation, there is a substantial difference between Kody and your average adulterous husband, which is that he isn’t committing adultery – at least as I understand the definition of the word.

What these people – “the Browns” – are engaged in is a consensual, adult religious practice. And while I may personally find it to be weird and even creepy – which I do – I cannot, in good conscious, condone its prohibition under the law as you seem to do in your article.

You note: “Utah has anti-polygamy laws and this faction has more than written their confession to the crime of polygamy on national television.”

Which begs the question: what right does the state of Utah – or any other government in the U.S. – have to imprison someone for engaging in consensual sex outside of their legally recognized marriage, especially when their lawful spouse is not only aware of the act, but actually encourages it? In this case, Kody and three of his four ‘sister wives’ may claim to be married in the eyes of God, but they are not – and cannot – be lawfully wedded in the eyes of any government in these United States.

So far as I am aware, Mr. Brown has never attempted to apply for a second legal marriage license while still being wed to his first wife, and until he does, his other “marriages” mean nothing in any legal sense of the word. So where’s the crime?

You also remark: “Sister Wives is nothing less than a counterculture advocacy program that undermines biblical values and promotes sexual perversion.”

Once again I find myself in agreement with you on this point, but even though I consider such advocacy disquieting, I refuse to condemn Kody and his clan as a criminal enterprise. Is it an immoral one? By normal Christian standards it clearly is. Is it potentially corruptive to the generally accepted institution of traditional marriage in America? I think so. Is it a crime to sleep with a bunch of people while you’re legally married to one person? It may be in Utah, but it shouldn’t be, at least not if the words “free country” still have any real meaning in America.

*VIDEO* A Tribute To America’s Special Forces – By Edward L. Daley

.
Don’t Mess With The Best!

.
United States Special Operations Command

.

YEP! I Am Running For President

BUT WAIT, ED IS RUNNING TOO!

Our Manifestly Unserious Republican House Leader – By Edward L. Daley

House Speaker John Boehner is not a serious adult when it comes to addressing the out-of-control federal spending of the Democrat party. That is evident in his proposal to cut a largely inconsequential $61 Billion from the final seven months of this year’s budget.

To give you a good idea of just how astoundingly weak Boehner’s proposal is, consider that the budget deficit for February of this year ALONE was $223 Billion, or almost four times the amount that the Speaker proposes to cut by year’s end.

Even if the Senate agrees to sign on to these cuts, Obama’s obscene spending policies will still add another $1.6 Trillion to our already crippling and unsustainable $14.2 Trillion national debt.

Add to that, the fact that the President has crafted a monstrously irresponsible $3.7 Trillion budget for fiscal year 2012, and Boehner ‘s $61 Billion scheme is exposed for the pathetic monetary joke that it is.

To put it bluntly, if the Republican leader of the House is not willing to propose at least $700 Billion in cuts this year in the hopes that he may be able to strike a $350 Billion deal down the road, then he has no business being Speaker, or even being a member of the GOP leadership.

Sure, I understand that the Speaker of the House has no power to force the democrat-controlled Senate or the President to accept such a proposal, but he does have the authority to set the budget-cutting negotiations bar as high as he likes.

I ask you, why allow the Democrat leadership to malign and demonize you over a mere $61 Billion in proposed budget reductions when they could easily be maligning and demonizing you over a number many times higher than that?

At the end of the day, you’d have to be the most inept haggler in the world not to get at least a quarter of a Trillion dollars in cuts out of the bastards, and what’s more, they’d come away from the experience understanding that you actually are what you said you were in November.

Unfortunately for us all, John Boehner is not what he claimed to be during the conservative electoral tsunami of 2010.

In fact, he is a demonstrably unmotivated, unremarkable and unserious individual who’s just made it painfully clear that he has no intention of confronting the tax-and-spend left in any appreciable way.

.

Good Religion, As I see It – By Edward L. Daley

My name is Edward L. Daley, and I’m what’s known as a deist. That is to say that I embrace no particular religious faith, yet I do believe in an eternal creator of all life and existence… as best we understand those terms. I simply do not claim to know the motives or methods of our creator.

As a deist, I’m generally regarded by most religious people as being a little weird, which suits me just fine, since I AM a little weird… and believe me, religion has absolutely nothing to do with that fact. Still, I’ve always been fascinated by religion, and that’s why I’m writing this article today.

For you see, I’ve come to conclude over the course of my 48 years on Earth that there are good religious practices and bad ones. I shall not name the various memberships of either camp here, but I will outline, in the simplest terms available to me, the necessary elements of what I believe to be a ‘good religion’.

In my view, a good religion is one in which its practitioners understand that a person cannot force another to honestly and wholeheartedly embrace any particular belief system. True faith can only be achieved of one’s own free will, devoid of coercion, bribery or any other illicit act.

Secondly, no good religion systemically endeavors to punish people for not embracing it. If one truly believes that one’s faith is the only means by which one may enter into the kingdom of God, such a person would necessarily pity a non-believer, and one does not punish those for whom one has sympathy.

Lastly, no practitioner of a good religion would seek to openly demean, degrade or defame the good religion embraced by another, even though one may strongly disagree with the latter’s method of worship. One may attempt to convert a person of a different faith to their own, but only via positive means, lest one be essentially corruptive in nature.

After all, if the point of embracing a religious faith is to find oneness with God (and please tell me, what other point is there?) what Godly purpose would it serve a person to embrace a religion which causes harm to non-believers for simply failing to share in said faith? Are not all people created equal in God’s eyes? And if one is judged wicked by God, isn’t it God who determines one’s ultimate fate?

I rest my case.

When Will The GOP Go After Obama For His Crimes? – Edward L. Daley

That’s right, I used the word crimes in the title of this article, and I make no apologies for it. What else would you call contempt of court, breach of official oath and possible seditious conspiracy?

As Monica Crowley wrote recently in an opinion article titled Obama Channels His Inner Mubarak:

Over the past week, Obama’s signature “achievement,” the monstrous ObamaCare, was ruled unconstitutional by a second federal judge. In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson stated that his declaratory judgment that the entire law be voided was a de facto injunction. In other words, without an administration request for a stay, Judge Vinson’s ruling stands. The federal and state governments should thus cease and desist. The current status of ObamaCare is that it’s been declared unconstitutional and all implementation must stop.

Obama’s reaction? “What? Did someone say something?”

As The Wall Street Journal reported this week, “The Obama administration said it has no plans to halt implementation of the law.” A senior administration official said, “We will continue to operate as we have previously.”

In other words: Up yours, judicial branch!

What do you think would happen to you, an average American citizen, if you decided to simply ignore a federal injunction against you? Do you think anyone in any position of authority would support that decision, even if they espoused your political views? Do you honestly believe that you’d be allowed to continue doing whatever you’d been enjoined from doing indefinitely, or is it more likely that you’d be readily prosecuted for your crime?

Don’t bother addressing those questions, because we all know what the answers would be. However, it seems quite apparent that if you’re an elected official to a high government office in this country – in this case, the highest – then the rules the rest of us have to live by don’t apply to you.

If that isn’t so, why then aren’t our congressional leaders – especially in the Republican party – currently in the process of drafting articles of impeachment against Barack Obama for High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Perhaps our representatives in Congress don’t think that a single, criminal act constitutes a substantial enough affront to our Constitution and the rule of law to warrant impeachment proceedings. But if that’s the case, one needs to consider that this is not the first time President Obama has willfully disregarded an unambiguous federal court ruling against his administration. As Crowley also noted in her op-ed:

In another stunning example of the executive running roughshod over the judiciary, another federal judge, Martin Feldman in New Orleans, ruled this week that the Obama administration was in contempt for blowing off his ruling lifting the Deepwater drilling moratorium. After the Deepwater Horizon spill, Obama halted offshore drilling. Feldman struck down the moratorium. Obama’s Interior Department went ahead with another moratorium, which was rescinded in October, but replaced with onerous new drilling safety rules. Feldman struck those down as well.

This week, the judge found that the Interior Department acted with “determined disregard” for his ruling when it deliberately re-instituted policies that restricted offshore drilling. “Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling. “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.

You read that right, the Executive branch of our federal government has been found in contempt of court for essentially doing the same thing it more recently did with regard to Judge Vinson’s ruling over the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’, which was to ignore it.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t we just elect Republicans by huge numbers in the mid-terms so that we could put a stop to irresponsible spending, governmental intrusiveness and blatant abuses of power at all levels of government?

Is it just me, or was eliminating ObamaCare not extremely high on the priority list of most Republicans last November?

Again, there’s no need to answer such rhetorical queries, since we all know exactly why the GOP gained control of our House of Representatives this year. What we don’t know is why our newly elected Congresspersons on the right aren’t raising the roof off the U.S. Capitol in outrage over the Obama administration’s blatant disregard for our most fundamental laws.

Perhaps Congress is so used to being held in contempt by its constituency that it just doesn’t take the charge seriously anymore, who knows. Still, there’s another charge to consider, even if contempt of court doesn’t fully ignite one’s impeachment passions.

In the opening sentence of this article I mentioned that the president (and, necessarily, others in his administration) may just be guilty of seditious conspiracy. The following article by Karl Denninger titled Health Care Unconstitutional: Obama Sedition? should help you to understand why.

Denninger writes:

This is now a full-blown Constitutional Crisis. The Executive’s willful, intentional and publicly-stated refusal to honor a declaratory judgment is an open act of willful and intentional violation of The Separation of Powers in The Constitution and, if combined with the use of or threat of use of force as is always present when government coercion is employed, treads awfully close to the line, and may cross it, of 18 USC Ch 115 Sec 2384, to wit:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The exercise of power by the Executive and Judicial branch, under which the Internal Revenue and Health and Human Services operate, inherently constitutes the use of force.

When such is used to “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of The United States” the parties that have done so, it can be argued, have engaged in a Seditious Conspiracy.

A “full-blown Constitutional Crisis”? Probably so, but you wouldn’t know it judging by the way the Republican-controlled House is behaving today. Sure, we’re all used to the mainstream news media giving Obama a pass on every act of corruption he commits. After all, his policy decisions are HISTORIC – which, in media newspeak means unassailable – so don’t expect any reporter to delve into the unsavory question of whether or not his deeds are actually legal. Still, I expected just a little bit more from the right-leaning men and women we recently elected to represent our interests in Congress.

Sadly, what these folks seem to have rapidly forgotten – assuming they ever really meant what they promised us during their campaigns – is that the number one goal of all true conservatives in this country is to see their government comport itself honorably.

I ask you, where is the honor in allowing the head of the Executive branch to trample, in a most shockingly belligerent manner, upon the very laws he has sworn before God and country to preserve, protect and defend?

*VIDEO* Don’t Touch My Junk – A Beatles Parody Song

*AUDIO* Deck The Marxist – A Christmas Parody Song

The following is a parody of the Christmas song ‘Deck The Halls’
Written By Edward L. Daley
Performed By The Tedious Marmosets & David Cholesterol

Here’s the words, in case some of you wish to sing along.

Deck the Marxist with a yule log
Fa la la la la la la la la
Kick his ass then drink some eggnog
Fa la la la la la la la la
Don’t be kind to commie douchebags
Fa la la la la la la la la
Treat them all like worn-out dishrags
Fa la la la la la la la la

Make the leftist beg for mercy
Fa la la la la la la la la
Call him names like dink and wussie
Fa la la la la la la la la
Dress him up like Sarah Palin
Fa la la la la la la la la
Box his ears if he starts wailin’
Fa la la la la la la la la

Liberals are void of reason
Fa la la la la la la la la
Never tolerate their treason
Fa la la la la la la la la
Their behavior’s not appallin’
Fa la la la la la la la la
If you don’t mind Joseph Stalin
Fa la la la la la la la la

Join the right-wing culture warriors
Fa la la la la la la la la
Screw the View and fuck Bill Moyers
Fa la la la la la la la la
No more time for Mr. nice guy
Fa la la la la la la la la
Make a few Obamabots cry
Fa la la la la la la la la
Fa la la la la la la la la

The TSA Versus Your Balls

I’m not a politician, although some of my friends have told me I should consider running for public office. That will never happen though, primarily because I’m not wealthy, and secondarily because I’m not mentally impaired. Of course, if I should ever win the lottery and then sustain a blunt force head trauma, Senator Susan Collins just might have an electoral fight on her hands.

That having been said, if I were a politician today, I’d be spending all my time speaking out against the so called “enhanced” pat-downs that they’re undertaking at American airports of late.

When I first heard the term ‘enhanced pat-down’, I wasn’t exactly sure what that meant. Initially I had envisioned something on par with the sort of physical contact one might expect if one were ever to meet an overly enthusiastic daytime television starlet at an Emmy awards ceremony; gropey and embarrassing, but not technically felonious in nature.

Once I found out what the Transportation Security Administration actually meant by “enhanced”, it occurred to me that the only time in my life I’d ever allowed a total stranger to touch me in such an intimate fashion, it cost me $60 in advance, and afterward I couldn’t find my watch.

In my opinion, one of the more disquieting aspects of these enhanced friskings is that they don’t even include “happy endings”, at least not in any appreciable sense of the term. I mean, if I wanted to be teased for no good reason, I’d call one of those adult 900 numbers for $4.99 a minute and then hang up before the charges reached ten bucks.

Worst of all, everyone at the tippy-top of the very government that is forcing this appalling diddle-fest on the rest of us, will likely never have to feel the cold, clammy hands of federal fascism upon their elitist jiggly parts unless, of course, they dig that sort of thing.

What I want to know is why our good friends and champions of liberty at the American Civil Liberties Union aren’t frothing at the mouth over these clear abuses of our personal privacy, at least to the degree that they were when they found out that George W. Bush wanted to treat non-uniformed enemy combatants differently than the kid who stole my ceramic lawn trolls last spring. If they are, I haven’t noticed it.

Heck, even the National Center for Transgender Equality now has a page on its official website dedicated to the subject of air travel and TSA regulations, and if anyone asks me how I know that little tidbit of information, I swear I’m gonna punch them right in face.

Suffice it to say that I have my sources, and as soon as I became aware of the fact that the NCTE was informing its membership of the current state of TSA affairs, certain questions began leaping to my mind. Among them were: what if a man who is in the process of becoming a woman is patted down by a TSA agent, and the agent discovers that the “woman” has something dangling from “her” groin area? Can an unexpected penis be considered a concealed weapon? Beyond that, are two TSA agents needed for the task of frisking a pre-op tranny – a female agent for the top parts and a male for the bottom – or do we have to start hiring transgender airport security officers now? Oh, and if a transexual airline passenger is a burqa-clad Muslim, will he/she be exempted from the pat-down process entirely, or will only half of him/her get a pass?

And speaking of Muslims, I met one just the other day at the checkout counter of my local supermarket. I noticed that she was buying nothing but fruits and vegetables, and asked her if she was a vegetarian. She informed me that she was, and upon hearing that I remarked: so, I guess that makes yours a true religion of peas. At that point she declared a fatwa on my family.

But I digress.

Perhaps the ACLU actually is up in arms over this whole TSA screening business, and I’m just a clueless hack with no real journalistic credibility… wait…

Still, I read up on these sorts of things regularly… okay, maybe not “regularly” but certainly as often as the editor of the New York Times does. And even though his may not be the highest fact-finding standard to which my own may be compared, at least I’m not asking for a government bailout to support my journalistic endeavors.

Now, where was I?

Oh yes, I was talking about the seeming outrage deficiency of the ACLU concerning the invasive and obviously unconstitutional passenger screening procedures of the Transportation Security Administration. And as disappointing as that state of affairs might be, it pales in comparison to the complete lack of righteous indignation exhibited by the average American citizen in this regard.

I don’t know what you ladies think about all this, but if you ask me, any adult male who would allow him self to be fondled by some high school dropout with a badge in front of dozens of gawking airline passengers, deserves the beating that he should have given his federally-sanctioned fondler as soon as the family jewels became the object of an unwelcomed jangling.

Congressman Barney Frank may consider that sort of behavior to be conducive with just another Saturday night out with the boys, but to heterosexual men like myself, having our genitals examined by other guys is something we only expect to experience in a doctor’s office, or if we’re ever arrested and thrown into county lock-up with several tattoo-embellished gang members.

And what’s the deal with those TSA zombies feeling up our pre-pubescent children? If you’re willing to sit idly by and watch as your 10-year-old daughter is molested by someone who – for all you know – gets off on “screening” little girls, then congratulations, you’ve just joined the ranks of the pathetic American sheeple class.

I would say that modern American males are sorely lacking in balls, but ever since I saw those full-body scan images posted on the internet, I know that’s simply not true. Then again, maybe the men (if you can still call them that) of this great country have traded in their forefathers’ brass cojones for happy-sacks full of cowardly compliance and a pair of shriveled, government-approved chickpeas.

By any means, at times like these it’s relevant to ask the question: what would General George S. Patton do? And while I cannot speak for the man in the sort of overreaching, faux-authoritative way that Harvard professors do about the “brilliant economic policies” of FDR, I do know one thing about “old blood and guts”. That thing is that he never, EVER would have allowed his “junk” to be grabbed – or even discussed in public – by the likes of your average TSA agent.

And if that concept doesn’t induce you to perform remarkable acts of civil disobedience the next time you attempt to board a commercial airplane, then you’re as useless as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

By Edward L. Daley