I am a "radical"

I am a right wing radical. I'm not sure how I turned out this way, but I did. These days it seems to be normal to blame your parents for your failings, so that's what I'm going to do. I grew up in a poor household; for a while my dad was an alcoholic but he got sober, on his own, without any help from social services or rehab programs. But I am sure those vague memories I have of him coming home drunk, and yet he and my mother somehow working out their problems, contributed toward my development as a future radical.

Even though my parents were poor, and went through many difficult years raising three boys, to my knowledge they never accepted help from anyone nor would they have ever considered reneging on a debt no matter how long it took to pay it off. They were not very political but were Republicans, I think mainly because after World War II my dad would not have voted for any presidential candidate except general Dwight Eisenhower or "Ike" as they called him. So I guess being the son of "Republicans" started me off on my path towards being a radical.

Parents were strict in those days and being one of three "somewhat wild" boys (we did have our share of trouble), when I look back I recall my parents always taking the side of the school teachers or administrators, and even in a few cases the police. They never tried to claim our "innocence" with school officials, and they never took legal action when we broke ankles or arms on the neighbor's ice skating pond or playing tackle football without equipment at the local park. I am sure this attitude about us kids taking "personal responsibility" for our actions had something to do with me becoming a radical.

During the past week those of us that are Conservatives have been defined as radicals. There was no sense to it but the main stream media who have so much control in this country have done a very good job of redefining what a "radical" is in this country. If you believe that the government is too intrusive in your life, you are a radical. If you believe that the national debt can potentially ruin the lives of your children or grandchildren, you are a radical. If you believe that everyone should take personal responsibility for themselves except when they seriously need help, you are a radical. If you believe that people that live in this country should be citizens or should be legally here as a guest, you are a radical.

I could go on about how I became a radical, but if my parents were here they would not recognize this country. They would not believe you can get three years of "unemployment insurance"; or if you made a loan commitment you cannot pay for, there is a government program to help you get out of paying that debt; or if you can't provide for your children, their school will provide all their meals; or if your child broke their arm playing football at the local park, there is a lawyer somewhere that will get you a cash payout.

The main stream media has done such a good job of defining our new culture, that those of us who remember the "old days" in this country are now radicals. I guess if they were alive, my parents would be proud that I am defined as a radical.

Twas the 36 Days Before Christmas

Do you remember the 2000 election? Those 36 crazy days of counting and analyzing punch-card ballots, "hanging and pregnant chads", vote-a-matic machines selected by Democrats (but confusing to Florida democrat voters), legal challenges, and mass confusion over what was one of the most dramatic political dramas of our time.

The Bush/Gore election was one for the books and had the nation on the edge of our seats until the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the madness. People will argue forever whether Bush or Gore won the election, but looking back neither turned out to be a very good choice. Bush was a disappointment, but at least he was honest and tried to do his best. But can you imagine Al (global warming) Gore as President and John (the adulterer) Edwards as Vice-President. Those two are classic examples of why many Americans have such a negative image of politicians.

But this blog is not about politicians it's about that crazy election. I heard recently that Hollywood is even making a movie about it. So as we approach Christmas I though it might be fun to revisit a version of the famous Christmas poem that I wrote after that '2000' election was over:

December 2000

'Twas the Night Before Christmas II
By Charles L. Strickland

‘Twas the night before Christmas at the White House this year,
the Demos had gathered to all shed a tear;
Carville, Jesse, and Al Sharpton were there,
hanging their heads by the chimney with care.

Bill Clinton was nestled all snug in his bed,
While visions of Monica danced in his head;
And Hillary in her kerchief, and Chelsea her cap,
Had just settled down for a long winter’s nap.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
They rose from their beds to see what was the matter.
When what to their wondering eyes should be seen,
But Tipper and Al Gore with a Vote-a-matic machine.

"We flew in from Palm Beach, and guess what folks?
I think we have found some more votes!
Look at these ballots with hanging chads pushed through,
and I even have dimpled and pregnant ones too!"

"Oh please Bill, can we count them once more,
you promised the next President would be named Al Gore"
Bill settled him down and said, "Do I need to repeat?,
The Supremes have spoken, and you are dead meat!"

So they all went inside and gathered around,
to see if George W. Bush’s FBI file could be found.
And as Christmas drew near, you could hear them all sigh,
"Merry Christmas to Al, and to Al a good-bye!"

Hands off my Estate

The debate on the "estate tax" is raging in Congress right now because at the end of this year it could change dramatically. The Bush tax cuts on estate tax have been progressively more lenient and this year there is 'zero' estate tax. But unless something changes, on January 1st the tax reverts to the previous level of a tax of 55% on all assets over $1 million. This may seem fair to some people, but if you own a small business, a family farm (or ranch) your heirs could have to sell the business or property just to pay these ridiculous estate taxes.

During an interview with Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener today he was asked; "If a person works all their life to earn assets and pays taxes on those assets (like a business or farm), why should he pay taxes again after he dies?" The arrogant Congressman responded "He doesn't pay taxes, he is dead, and his heirs pay the taxes because this is "income" to them.

This one question to a committed liberal clearly illustrates their philosophical belief in "income redistribution". Liberals (progressives) believe that when someone with assets dies, a (major) portion of their assets should be distributed to the people in the country who are "not as fortunate". And of course liberals believe the government should be the ones to redistribute those assets.

It will be interesting to see what the politicians negotiate during the next few weeks, but there is no way the successful investor, or businessman, or farmer is going to tolerate 55% of their estate going to the government instead of their family. What I have earned in my lifetime (and paid taxes along the way) belongs to my family. If the government does pass this ridiculous tax we will figure out how to keep from paying it.

Old-time comedian Jack Benny who loved his money once said "If I can't take it with me, I'm not going to go". I say; "If the government tries to take 55% of it, we will give it away before we go".

Dancing with the "Stars"

This cleverly photo-shopped picture has been traveling the internet as a parody of the TV show and as a parody of our politics.

It seems like the only people you hear about in the news these days are Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Now it's understandable that the (mainly) liberal media in this country would spend their time concentrating on Obama's activities - but why are they also so obsessed with Sarah Palin?

I'll tell you why - FEAR. I am not a Sarah Palin fan, especially as a presidential candidate, but if you look at the polls Palin's ratings are almost the same as Obama's - both positive and negative. Whether you like her or not, a lot of the "folks" do. I have a son who cannot stand Sarah Palin and shutters at the thought of her ever being president. So of course as a good father I forward every Palin article I can find to him (he is working on a "Palin" filter to stop my emails). He is also a Libertarian and cannot stand Barack Obama and would vote him out of office in a minute.

But what if his only choice is Palin or Obama in the next election? His response would be; "Then I won't vote". But not voting means the Washington "elites" that want to run this country win.

Palin is not an articulate speaker; she has little international experience, but has managed a city as a mayor and a state as a governor. Obama is an articulate speaker (as long as a teleprompter tells him what to say), and he had some international experience when he became president, but he had no management experience whatsoever and after two years his incompetence as a manager has risen to the surface and put this country in huge peril. Do any of the readers of this blog believe Sarah Palin or any other conservative could have done a worse job?

Palin in a recent interview was asked by Barbara Walters if she thought she could beat Obama in an election; she said "yes". You have to give her an "A" for self confidence. I don't think she will be the republican nominee in 2012 but if she decides to run it will be interesting to see if the "folks" can push her over the top. If they do, I believe one of my sons will start making plans to leave the country...but as Ronald Reagan once said; "If we ever lose our freedoms here there will be no other place to go".

As for Obama, to paraphrase one of my favorite commentators; "The Obama presidency will eventually be nothing more than graffiti on the wall of American history".

We need to "rescue" California

The state of California is sinking under its own weight and some big changes are needed.

California is a very "blue" state. To begin with, Conservative candidates start with a 16 point disadvantage compared to their Democratic opponents. But this is an once-in-a-lifetime election and if we don't change the course of this state - predictions will come true that California will slide into the ocean; not from an earthquake, but from a debt burden that we cannot sustain.

The fiscal problems in California are too numerous to detail in a blog but one thing is for sure, we need to try something radically different. So why not put some business people in charge and give them a chance at trying to rescue our state. Career politicians and our so-called "Republican" governor have failed miserably.

Senator Barbara Boxer has represented California for decades and has done nothing but help dig the hole deeper. Jerry Brown had his chance as governor in the past so why should we "retread" him and send him back to Sacramento. He is nothing but a career politician who has no experience running any business. Do we really want to reelect someone who has spent his whole life in politics?

I urge my California readers to give Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman a chance to get this ship turned around. Both accomplished business women who at least know what a balanced budget is all about. The men have had their chance; let's turn this state over to some Conservative women.

Socialism on the March

How would you like it if instead of giving you your paycheck, your employer sent it to the government who then would decide how much tax was to be taken out, and then wired the balance to your bank account? "The government would never try something like that", you say?

Well maybe not yet, but that is just what has recently been proposed in Great Britain. Instead of employers deducting income tax then paying net salaries to employees, the gross monthly payment would go to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs "tax calculator”, which would then pass the net salary to the worker's bank account.

The reform would mean the end of traditional monthly pay slips, because employers would no longer be able to tell workers how much tax they had paid each month. This would be called the pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) system.

It sounds crazy, but is being seriously considered in Britain because the British government says "There are too many errors in the system and we need more direct control of taxes". Do you think there might be a chance that the government themselves are making most of the errors? So of course the "socialist's" answer is to give the government more power?

I can't believe this proposal will ever become law, but just the fact that it has been proposed makes us Conservatives want to run for the hills. Liberals want power over our lives; it's as simple as that, because without control they have no ideas that will fly with the American people.

We are still dumping tea in the harbor

The Boston Tea Party was an action by colonists against the British government when as a result of over taxation they boarded British ships and destroyed the British shipments of tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event in American history and other political protests often refer to it.

The liberal left (especially the media) made fun of the present "Tea Party" movement when it first started. They accused the movement of being composed of radicals, racists, religious fanatics, homophobes, etc....and wrote them off as just a bunch of "kooks". But then Tea Party candidates started winning elections and the movement became more than just a few people "dumping tea in the harbor". Glenn Beck had a non-violent "rally" in Washington and the media played it down as about 50,000 "right wingers" - it has been proven by photographic evidence that there were 300-500,000 people at that "rally" and as much as they tried, the liberal media could not come up with one incident to demonize those right wingers.

In recent primaries many inexperienced and unknown Tea Party candidates have won elections against the "elites" in the Republican party, to the shock of the "machine". I contend this election is different than any in my lifetime - people are pissed. They DO want so-called conservative "extremists" to go to Washington and stop the madness.

Liberals are worried about their future, but so are Conservatives; what is different is that conservative voters are not just worried about their future; they are worried about their kids and their grand kid's future.

The government is out of control and I believe we are ready for a group of conservative (even though inexperienced) legislators that are not part of the Washington machine, who will represent their constituents. Some of these recently elected Tea Party primary candidates may not win in November, but I believe conservatism will win in the long run. The media has made it a top priority to label us conservatives as "radicals" but in the long run it won't work. We are no different than those brave souls that dumped that tea in the harbor in 1773 and started a movement that resulted in the creation of the greatest country this world has ever known.