Why The GOP Is Destined To Lose Yet Another Presidential Election

Hey, Old Man Savastano, where have your long-winded political rants been this presidential election cycle?! I know, I know, but to be honest with you, dear reader, after seeing the presidency go to The Messiah again back in 2012, I was exhausted with the whole process. I must admit, however, while I may have been more quiet than usual this time around, the volume of political press I consume on a daily basis has not subsided, nor have my opinions on what I have been reading.

I must also readily admit, my friends, that while I happily sent in my annual donation to the Grand Ol’ Party as recently as 2011, in the years since, I have become more disillusioned than anything else with party politics, overly-entitled American non-taxpayers, paying a butt load in taxes, and the general direction of the country as a whole as we move from praising and rewarding hard work to condoning then glorifying sloth. I feel that, as a nation, we are moving from hard-working, proud superpower to sitting on our asses with our hand out, whining, and making sure nothing we say ever offends a single solitary soul somewhere else in the world, including our enemies who would like to kill us.

So, why am I so disillusioned? What is the source of my silence? I think it should be obvious to anyone even remotely following American politics today. I am just so exhausted by the divisiveness, the unintelligible rhetoric, and above all, the lack of integrity, reasonability, and personal responsibility. While I may be looking back through vintage 1984 Reagan-colored glasses, I think folks on both sides of the aisle would agree, there was a time when there seemed to be a lot more reaching across that aisle going on. I know all you libs say we conservatives always remember things as more positive than they actually were and that, in fact, everyone has always triple-bolted their front doors, has always had alarms on their homes, and slept with a shotgun under their bed, but I find it hard to believe that American society has always been this divisive, especially since I seem to remember it differently firsthand.

But, beyond just an increased divide, we are living in a strange time where each side has grown so accustomed to combating the other that even when there is a chance for common ground, our politicians find a way to disagree. They seem to disagree, no matter what, even when it seems to go against their core principles. It’s like that friend you have that likes to argue so much that even when you agree with them, they flip and take the other side, just so they can argue with you. Granted, that argumentative friend is usually a screaming liberal, but in today’s political scene, this is happening on both sides.

Want proof? How about the fact that we have a Republican-controlled congress that has increased spending by passing a budget that is larger than the last Democrat-controlled congress. Come again? Yes, that is the Twilight Zone theme song you hear.

Or how about the fact that all of you anti-war, peace-loving, negotiate at any cost instead of dropping bombs, man, liberals out there sure seem to tolerate HisHighness Barack Obama using drones to kill U.S. citizens and a whole mess of civilians in other countries without uttering a peep. While I am sure you still cling tightly to your angst for that warmonger Bush, I really hope you aren’t still blaming him for the collateral damage that happens during the airstrikes authorized by your Messiah. I’m just saying that if you were out there protesting Bush and the killing of innocent civilians, you should still be out there right now, protesting against your Nobel Peace Prize-winning love-of-your-life that has a kill now ask questions later list of people who get vaporized the second they come into the crosshairs.

So, when you have a Republican-controlled congress increasing spending and a liberal Democrat President with a Nobel Peace Prize that has a standing order to rain death from above, even on U.S. citizens, I think it may be time for all of us to pause and to take a look at just what politics in America has become today; divisive, and quite frankly, insane.

When The Messiah does something I disagree with, all I hear is that I am a racist for not agreeing with him. Once Hillar-ious is in office and I disagree with something she does, I will immediately be labeled as a sexist. When I complain about having too much of my money stolen in taxes, I am labeled as an elitist and a racist. When I believe that we should enforce the laws of the land, including our immigration laws, I am labeled as a xenophobe and a racist. And when I try to explain to all of you liberals out there that the word “free” always comes with a cost somewhere down the line, whether the “free” is referring to healthcare, childcare, college, food, or cell phones, I am labeled as a classicist who hates the poor. Oh, and a racist.

So, maybe, I’ve been quieter this time around because I am tired of every single time I oppose any little thing that any liberal does, I am immediately labeled with some form of –ism and told that my deplorable beliefs do not have a right to exist.

Or, perhaps, my silence has to do with the fact that while Trump is still getting my vote, it now has much more to do with voting against Hillar-ious and the perpetual liberal spending machine than voting for him. It’s not like you are going to see me spewing out article after article in which I proclaim Taco Bowls is the greatest thing to happen to America. About the best I could muster would be to say that he is still a better choice than Crooked Hillary and the rest of the liberal political machine that has us spending towards oblivion. Either way, it is still very much a Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich election.

Nonetheless, I will say I am still desperately wanting to see if an actual businessman can get us out of this $20 trillion mess, or at worst, try a little something different in Washington for once other than politics as usual. I’d have preferred a Romney or Forbes, but at this point, I’ll take what I can get.

Then again, maybe I am sitting silent, not wanting to rock the boat too much as I dare to dream that we have a chance of electing a president whose tax plan will reduce my income tax bill by about $7,000 a year, as opposed to a president whose tax plan is going to add insult to injury by adding $189 a year to the already 27 cents of every dollar I earn that I don’t get to take home.

Then again, maybe my silence stems from the fact that it’s now been about five years or so since I began referring to myself as a fiscal conservative instead of a Republican. Either way, nothing has made me feel more like an independent or third party sympathizer than this damned election. And to quote Lieutenant Commander Cole, Virgil Cole, “Frankly, sir, I think we’re going to lose this one.”

And it’s not that I am sore loser. It’s more so that I simply cannot see how, given well over two years time, the Republican party could not come up with viable enough candidate to give Hillar-ious a run for her money.

The GOP, and its members, knew exactly what needed to happen to win the 2016 election the second the 2012 election was officially declared over and lost. The party needed to produce an experienced candidate with just the right combination of political insider-ship and anti-establishment credentials that appealed not only to conservatives, but also to independents and the soon-to-not-be-a-minority-anymore voter. It needed someone who could provide the necessary experience and fortitude to address the concerns of those who believe social safety nets are direly necessary as well as those who are sick and tired of paying vast amounts of their hard-earned money to pay for social safety nets they themselves seem to never use despite suffering their own financial hardships from time to time. It needed to offer up a candidate that made the right people feel secure in their government programs and the right people feel secure in their optimism about capitalism and entrepreneurship.

Above all, the GOP needed to produce someone that a majority of America felt was a reasonable person who could compromise when needed, but could also be stern when it was time to stand up for what was right. It needed to run someone who we all felt would do better on transparency and hypocrisy and misleading or misjudging on the facts than the current Oval Office occupant. The Party needed to produce someone who was more willing to work with those on the other side of the political spectrum, and more willing to listen to the needs and wants of the America people.

For a party that seems to not go thirty seconds without praising Ronald Reagan and his electability during the 1980 race, the GOP sure seems to not have much of an understanding of just what made Uncle Ronnie electable to vast amounts of Americans that year, and again in 1984. Because when I look at the establishment candidates that were ultimately produced this election cycle, I sure don’t see that Reagan-style mass appeal. Little Marco was probably the closest, but it is obvious the GOP could not produce a single person who appealed to its base as well as the boarder American audience.

And because the party could not produce a viable candidate for the base, the base went out and found its own candidate. And while the party is quick to stand up and point fingers at the actual voters, and not the party itself for the reason conservatives ended up with such an unpopular nominee in the end, I would argue that it is, in fact, the party’s inability to produce a single stellar presidential candidate that is the reason Republican primary voters revolted against every single establishment candidate.

But, at the same time, primary voters themselves still bear some responsibility. When voting in a party primary, you should not only be considering a vote for someone you like, but should also be considering a vote for someone who stands an actual chance of winning the general election. It is quite clear that far too many Republican primary voters were not taking this into consideration during this election.

Every conservative, especially those who consider themselves Republicans, should know at this point that one of the most important influences on American politics and elections moving forward will be the Hispanic vote. Yet, primary voters really could not have picked a person more reviled by that group of people than Taco Bowls. Some of these folks may ultimately still vote against Hillar-ious because of their more conservative or religious views, but a nominee calling their family members still in Mexico murderers and rapists in blanket statements sure isn’t going to sway those voters to vote against Hillar-ious.

And while religious rhetoric might play well throughout the heartland and in select homes, it sure does not have mass appeal any longer to the independent voters that sway elections. As a party, the GOP really needs to learn this. Everyone has a right to his or her religious views and I’d never fault someone for sharing them, but candidates must understand that a shift in religious values has occurred, and their religious beliefs must be soft enough to appeal to the growing population of non-religious people in this country.

All of these reasons combined, regardless of how Taco Bowls ends up fairing, or regardless of whatever other skeletons jump out of his closet between now and the election, are why the GOP is destined to lose yet another presidential election. And unless the party makes some serious changes in the candidates it produces, it’s going to lose in 2020, too.

Now, before you paint me as a bleeding heart liberal turning his back on his values, I am more conservative than most on a lot of things, but I also know that you can’t win an election without appealing to a broad swath of the American public on a broad array of issues. Sadly, it seems that neither the GOP nor Republican primary voters, however, were able to wrap their heads around that. And that lack of foresight in electing a nominee that could actually win the general election, was the last puzzle piece needed in Hillar-ious finally realizing her goal of becoming the most powerful person on the planet.

All of that being said, there are very few things I have seen in life that make me roll my eyes and shake my head in disbelief more than the fact that our next U.S. President is going to be that woman, Ms. Rodham. Not because she is a Democrat, but because she is a liar, schemer, conspirator, opportunist, hypocrite, and even worse, probably cannot legitimately understand why half of the country can’t stand her. There is nothing worse than a horrible person who thinks everyone hates them because of everything else besides their own actions.

If you had asked me back in the 1990s why Hillar-ious stuck with Willy Jeff through all his womanizing and sexual assault allegations, I would have told you it was because it was her road to the Presidency. Mark my words; I have no problem whatsoever with a woman being the President of the United States of America. I just wish it wasn’t going to be that woman.

Where do I begin when it comes to Hillar-ious and what is wrong with her being the President? Well, for starters, unlike our next Commander-in-Chief, I do think Benghazi was a big deal – for many reasons. The clandestine nature of the covert arms mission in Libya, which was funneling Libyan weapons stockpiled by Gaddafi to anti-Assad Syrian rebels without the knowledge or consent of the American people, is one. The fact that our government left its citizens who were either knowingly or unknowingly supporting that arms mission to their own devices when their lives were in danger, despite the fact that we have this unbelievably huge and costly military, is another. The fact that for hours upon hours, our people over there sought help from their government and without a doubt, all of the phones in Washington, D.C. went unanswered “at three in the morning” that night is yet another. And of course, the fact that our Secretary of State not only lied to the American people about the nature of the deaths in Benghazi, but turned around and told that same lie directly to the faces of the family members of the Americans who died on her watch, is one of the biggest ones. But perhaps my biggest issue with Benghazi is the fact that despite us all knowing what happened, and who is at fault, it is not a big enough deal to the American people to keep the person in charge of the entire fiasco from becoming President.

Spend a little time reading about the actual facts surrounding the email scandal, and what is more troubling than a private email server in the basement of a home being used to handle national security information, classified or not, or the deleting of tens of thousands of government emails, are the tenets of what the FBI jokingly called an investigation. Who else in America besides a Clinton gets investigated by the FBI then has every key member of the investigation granted immunity, and to top it off, gets to dictate to the FBI what evidence can be reviewed, when it can be reviewed, as well as the point at which that evidence is to be destroyed so it can no longer be used when new facts come to light at a later time. Also, there is no doubt that Crooked Hillary lied to save her skin on this one. Even that weasel Comey admitted that. And it’s already coming out that key members of the investigation were shocked when no charges were filed. 

Anyone else who had perpetrated the same actions as Ms. Rodham did throughout the use of the server and the ensuing cover-up would have landed in jail. There are members of our military who sit in jail right now for far less. So, when Taco Bowls says that Hillar-ious oughtta be in jail, he’s not being a misogynist, he’s basically stating that if any one of us commoners had committed the same acts, we’d be behind bars. He is also referencing the fact that if he were President, unlike HisHighness did with Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious fiasco, people who committed crimes would go to jail, not end up running for higher office instead. I must say that I agree with that stance.

And if this all was not enough to keep that woman, Ms. Rodham, out of the Oval Office, take into consideration the fact that while serving as Secretary of State, even though she promised otherwise, Crooked Hillary had people on-staff at both the State Department and the Clinton Foundation at the same time. You definitely don’t get interests more conflicted than that! Now, take into consideration that it is apparently clear that donations to the Clinton Foundation got donors access to the State Department, as well as favors from that State Department. Also, take into consideration the hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation that came from nations that condone the stoning of women for adultery, don’t consider rape to be rape, and will happily toss gays, lesbians, and everyone in-between off the roofs of buildings, all the while, with the Clintons barking about how they are the ones who care about these people, not their deplorable opponent and his supporters. 

Finally, take into consideration that the Saudi government has been providing support to ISIS, as the latest round of WikiLeaks emails suggest, and that the Clinton and Obama camps knew this full well, but obviously, kept it from us. All things mentioned here considered, it really makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with the American people that they would allow this type of behavior from someone they are about to elect as President. Especially, while criticizing every move the other candidate has ever made, ever.

Then, to top this all off, you have the entities and professionals in this country who still somehow manage to call themselves news agencies and journalists while so blatantly favoring one party and one candidate, even during the debates. It seems that while every single past incident in Taco Bowls’ life has come under close scrutiny by the media, that same media seems to pretend that the entire Willy Jeff presidency, of which Hillar-ious was heavily involved, never even happened. Well, at least any of the negative aspects of it, that is.

The Clinton presidency was filled with things like the Clinton Healthcare Plan of 1993, also known as Hillarycare, which led to litigation surrounding secret backroom meetings and cost taxpayers untold millions, but luckily never came to fruition; as well as TravelGate, the scandal in which Hillar-ious wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson, which resulted in her reporting members of the White House Travel Office to the FBI and getting them fired when they refused to comply with her wishes. As Wikipedia states, “Hillary Clinton gradually came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in it.”

And we cannot forget about FileGate during which close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, who was long accused of not being qualified for his position as Director of White House security, was accused of improperly accessing the FBI files of folks who were obviously political enemies of the Clintons. Naturally, everyone involved was acquitted and it was brushed under the rug.

And, of course, let’s not forget about the granddaddy of Clinton scandals, Whitewater. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr was appointed because Hillar-ious was refusing to release documents surrounding Whitewater, a real estate venture during which Willy Jeff supposedly forced an illegal loan to be made to his business partners while he was governor of Arkansas. It was this investigation, at a cost of $80 million, that led to the discovery of the Oval Office intern blow jobs, that infamous blue dress, and a sitting President, who was also a lawyer, lying under oath in a deposition and, even worse, directly to the American people. Hillar-ious avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

And yet, here we are, ready to put these people back in the White House for presumably another eight years.

Consider, also, the fact that from 1988 to 2024, a span of 36 years, for 28 of those years, or over 77%, one member of two families will have occupied the Oval Office if Hillar-ious gets her way and serves for eight years. While we can debate all day long the intentions of the Founding Fathers on things like guns and religion, it is obvious that our entire system of government was designed to prevent the likes of this two-sided oligarchy from happening, yet here we are.

So, while this election is a contest between what the American people have obviously deemed to be the lesser of two evils, it is also still very much a contest between the two party establishments that seek to give us yet another eight years of oligarchy. On the Democratic side, the oligarchy is firmly in place, but on the Republican side, you at least have a candidate that has definitely proven that he does not answer to the establishment.

But, ultimately, in the end, I would argue that all of these things I have presented so far do not matter one bit when we boil the situation down to the true reason why people actually vote for a candidate. And that is…what’s in it for them. If I vote for Taco Bowls and he wins, over the next four years, I get to keep $28,000 of my money that will otherwise be sucked up into the wasteful, fraud-ridden welfare machine that our country has become. If I vote for Taco Bowls and he loses, not only do I not get to keep that $28,000, Hillar-ious is going to want me to pay an additional $756 over that same four-year period. Given that scenario, whom would you vote for? If you didn’t say Taco Bowls, then I admire your convictions, though I think you’re nuts!

And this, my friends, is what we can boil all of politics in America down to today. What’s in it for me? If your parents came here illegally, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you or your family relies on those checks from the government, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you’re making less than $15 an hour, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you can’t afford health insurance, and I don’t mean you’ve just been raked over the coals with increased premiums by Obamacare, but genuinely are deciding between health insurance and food, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you can’t afford, or simply don’t want to pay for college, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you feel it is the government’s job to take care of those who do not want to take care of themselves, you are voting for Hillar-ious. And, if none of these things apply to you, you are voting for Taco Bowls because more likely than not, you’re one of the dumbasses going to work everyday so you can pay for all of these free things for other people while still having to pay for them yourself, or you are one of the crazy bastards who would rather be working instead of living off the government.

So, like so many other Americans, I am going to vote for the candidate that is going make the most sense for me financially. I believe that is what most of us are going to do anyway. For me, that’s Taco Bowls because I am a producer and a taxpayer, and sadly, no matter what comes out about him between now and the election, it still couldn’t possibly be any worse than the things Ms. Hillar-ious Rodham has done while already in office.

Photo by Maret Hosemann via Pixabay

It's Unwinding...Can Mr. Taco Bowls Re-Wind It?

In March 2016, Rob Dreher reported the following in his article, “You Can See It All Over. It’s Unwinding”: “There is no way a man like Donald Trump has any business being president,” the man told me. “You can’t talk like he does and expect people to give you the authority to run the country. The problem is that there is nobody to vote for. Look at all the rest of them running. This is the first time in my life that I don’t feel confident voting for anybody for president.” And later, with a look of pained resignation on his face: “I tell you, people who don’t think this country is in serious trouble don’t know what they’re talking about. You can see it all over. It’s unwinding.”

I feel the 2016 primary season, especially the Republican side, is quite accurately summarized in this single quote from a self-professed Louisiana conservative. The sentiments were provided to Dreher in March, long before Mr. Donald Trump would find himself as the presumptive Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States.

And while I might not disagree entirely that an overly-emotional, reactionary, former reality TV star who doesn’t always think before he speaks has no business being president, I do tend to agree with the notion that perhaps what this country might actually need right now is someone who has no business being president. I guess I’d also argue that if you are a Hillary Clinton supporter, then you and I must be in agreement on something – you too must believe that someone who has no business being president should be our next president.

“The problem is that there is nobody to vote for. Look at all the rest of them running. This is the first time in my life that I don’t feel confident voting for anybody for president.”  While I might not have agreed entirely with this statement when it was made back in March, I will readily admit that as the Republican primary field dwindled down, I too, for the first time in my life, felt fairly uncertain of whom to vote for when the June California primary was going to finally arrive. Whether fortunately, or unfortunately, by the time it was our time to vote, the primary winner had already been presumptively crowned. Any vote other than a vote for Mr. Trump in the California primary would have been a symbolic gesture.

In 1992, I voted for William Jefferson Clinton. That often comes as a big surprise to those who know me, but I had just turned 18 years old, was in my first year of college, and worried H.W. was going to send me off to war in Iraq, plus at the time, Clinton represented youth and rejuvenation in America, so I overlooked the scandals, shady rendezvous, alleged forced encounters, and usual political stories that fascinate me now, and still voted for him for purely selfish reasons.

By 1996, I was heavily disappointed in the morally weak man Clinton turned out to be (though I really should have known that already when I voted for him in 1992), and I was disappointed in the fact that a man who claimed to be a lawyer still lied under oath, even if he was doing it to try to cover up an affair with an intern that occurred in the Oval Office. And while I liked Bob Dole and how he referred to himself in third person, which William L. Savastano tends to do quite often, I was so fascinated at the prospect of a businessman serving as our president – someone who actually stood a chance of being a fiscal conservative – that Ross Perot got my vote. As you know, according to the final vote count that year, Clinton’s affair and lying under oath still did not keep the man from getting re-elected.

Then in 2000, how could I not vote for Dubya over boring ass environmentalist and creator of the Internet Al Gore? And then in 2004, how could I not vote for Dubya over boring ass John Heinz Kerry? Granted, there was more to my decision than that, but long story short, in 2000, the conservative in me voted pretty solidly along party lines, and in 2004, because we had not seen another large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil and things were going well for me personally, four more years of Dubya just made sense. Plus, I did love how much he pissed off and befuddled all of the liberals out there who hated him so much! And let me make one thing clear about the 2000 election, though I am not as much of a fan now, had Colin Powell run for president in 2000, he would have had my vote hands down! I was really disappointed when the general decided not to run.

Then, 2008 rolled around. Is everyone still as disappointed in that one as me? Not because we lost, but because even in the face of an inexperienced young Senator who obviously was not seasoned enough to serve as commander in chief, the best we could muster at the time to oppose him was McCain-Palin. Don’t get me wrong, McCain is deserving of our respect and is every ounce the war hero everyone makes him out to be, but while you can make the argument it was his time and he had earned the chance to be our president, that ticket was never going to live up to what would have been needed to win in 2008, especially with a whole mess of people voting for someone simply because of the color of his skin.

In 2012, I was Romney all the way from the very earliest days of his campaign, and was a Romney supporter through to the end. I also was a big fan of Hermain Cain that election cycle.

In 2016, had Romney run again, he would have been a strong contender for my vote. I was also a strong supporter of Dr. Ben Carson, long before he actually decide to run, back when he was still wearing glasses during TV appearances. And Scott Walker was someone I could have seen myself voting for as well. But, with Romney not in at all, and Walker out early, I was all set to vote for Dr. Carson in the primary for 2016, but we all know now how that turned out.

This all leads me to where we are today…mid-2016, just before the conventions that will finalize the results of the groundbreaking primary competition between the outsiders and the establishment…if you can consider a socialist career politician and a billionaire who built his wealth on a gift from his daddy to be outsiders.

Make no bones about it, I understand the difference between establishment and outsider in this election, but we’re not talking about a complete outsider, grassroots candidate who will be leaving his or her job at the tire shop to become president.

I do still see this election as a crossroads for our country, though. I know we say that about every election, but it is definitely the case this time as well. On the left, you can feel the socialists trying very hard to pull the established party even further to the left than our president has done over the past seven years. Social agendas are more important than security and financial responsibility at all costs on the left. On the right, you can feel the anti-establishment movement standing with a candidate that is already a little further to the right, or at least seems to be today, than the GOP’s previous presidential and candidate offerings. Are we actually really talking about banning entire religious or ethnic groups again in this country?

Either way, I doubt we will see a coming together on common ground for either side any time soon. And as much as I believe my fiscally conservative views are correct and don’t like to compromise those views very often, I also recognize that our country’s inability to find common ground these days is not a good thing.

This election is going to determine if the country continues its steep slide to the left, or if there is a steep pullback to the right. I personally believe there is nothing in the world Trump or any of his supporters can do to defeat the Clinton juggernaut that is propped up by the Democrat establishment, the liberal elites, and all that campaign money. The Trump campaign’s only chance would be a complete 180 degree turn to a more reasonable stance on a number of issues, which I don’t see happening. Plus, add in all the folks that are going to vote Clinton because of the chromosomes she possesses, and all the independent and centrist folks who are going to choose her as the lesser of two evils, and there will be enough votes to rocket her to the presidency she has been dreaming about since she first met Bill, or perhaps since she decided to stick by his lying, cheating ass for her own personal gain.

So, unless something new and groundbreaking happens at either of the two major party conventions, Hillar-ious and I Love Taco Bowls are going to be the choice I am faced with in the general election. Yes, there are all of those third party candidates out there, and my Perot precedence aside, unless there is a huge surge from someone like Gary Johnson to actually give him a real chance at electability, I’d hate to waste my vote as a symbolic gesture of defiance for Clinton and Trump being the best America has to offer as presidential candidates this time around.

So, with the primaries pretty much finalized, it appears all that remains for me now is to decide if I like Trump enough to vote for him, or if I dislike Hillar-ious enough to vote for Trump. And since I have said that I would rather vote for a rock I found on the ground than for Hillar-ious, and still feel that way, short of not voting, which I will never do, it looks like my ballot in November will be cast for a former reality TV star, even though no one hates reality TV more than me.

Putting aside his former stint firing people on TV, as much as I need to fear being accosted by bands of dreamers, anarchists and socialists for saying so, I do actually agree with a future President Trump on a number of issues.

My view on the wall is that the arguments about it are somewhat symbolic. While both sides scream about whether or not it should be built, if you travel to the border, you will see that the wall is already there. Any wall construction will actually be to extend it, and if we decide to do so, either in width or in height, make no mistake about it – we, the taxpayers are the ones that are going to be paying for it. And while I understand the arguments about providing everyone in the world their chance at the American dream, I also understand the necessity for a secure border, not just here in America, but for nations around the world. We have to at least try to deter mass undocumented illegal immigration in which our enemies can hide among illegal immigrants, and despite the ground the legalization movement has made, we still have to try to keep the drug cartels from operating on our soil. Anyone who thinks we can just tear down that wall without devastating our way of life lives in a dream world. Borders have existed for thousands of years and have helped protect the sovereignty and way of life for great nations far longer than any of us have been alive.

And while a future President Trump says he is going to round up and deport everyone in the country illegally, I think we all recognize that as campaign speak which is completely impractical in the real world. Yet, at the same time, people should not simply get complete amnesty for having broken our immigration laws. There is a middle ground that we can and must find. The real problem with immigration is getting our government to make a decision and then actually implementing what has been decided. I believe neither candidate will have the ability to resolve this issue, even given their potential to spend eight years in office.

On the foreign trade front, we should be concerned about China and our other trading partners and ensuring we have the best trade deals for American companies and American workers, but damaging international trade in any form goes against my core fiscal beliefs. I do believe, however, that a lot of Trump’s tough talk on China and international trade is campaign rhetoric that will subside to a more realistic stance once he is in office. That being said, I do believe that he will fight for American businesses large and small on both the world stage and here at home. Since so much of our job growth and economic prosperity rely on the success of our business community, a President Trump would be a much more business-friendly leader than would yet another Democrat two-term president who doesn’t understand how business and the economy work. I also definitely would trust a President Trump with my tax money far more than I would a socialist President Clinton.

In regards to the War on Terror (yes, I still call it that), we need to stop pussy-footing around with Russia, Syria, Turkey and ISIS, and I see a President Trump doing that with much stronger results than a second President Clinton, especially when you take a look at her foreign policy track record, which brought us the Benghazi fiasco as well as a larger fiasco in the rest of Libya. I very much believe that we need to work closely with the local freedom fighters in the Middle East and support them in routing out these ultra extremist factions that are sponsoring and committing acts of terror around the world. We need to use our military forces in a much smarter way and listen to the military commanders in the region, two things the current president has failed to do, and two things I whole-heartedly believe the next Democrat president will fail miserably at as well.

And while I will admit I don’t disagree completely with them on every issue, I also can really use a break from having the left’s ultra-liberal change-at-any-cost because your supposedly-rich-ass-makes-too-much-money social agenda continually rammed down my throat. I am definitely going to be pissed if they start taking more money from me to pay for other people to go to college when I had to struggle to pay for that shit myself, working three jobs at once at times to cover tuition, books, and my other bills.

And while some of you libs would argue this point until your last breath, I still have some reasonability in my noggin, so I don’t think we need to ban every Muslim from coming to this country. Though I would like to see a much stronger screening process for every single person we allow in, regardless of his or her nationality, race, or religion. And, I have absolutely zero confidence that the Obama administration is capable of properly vetting refugees of any origin before allowing them to walk the streets among us.

As for his rhetoric and the left’s continual accusations of Mr. Trump’s ability to create divisiveness, I do agree somewhat that the rhetoric and divisiveness could be toned down a bit, but what I hear from White House briefings when HisHighness gets on his high horse about something is pretty damned divisive as well.

And lastly, rather than re-hashing all of typical conservative stances that go against the socialist beliefs of soon-to-be-President Clinton, let me just address the following: Of course I am all for lower taxes, more efficient and practical use of the money that both the state and the federal government steal from me, providing the unemployed with education and employment opportunities as opposed to just handing them my money, harsh sentences coupled with rehabilitation programs that actually work for criminals, a strong national defense that includes actually eliminating ISIS, as well as still allowing personal liberty for law-abiding citizens, while encouraging every immigrant to assimilate into America’s culture, and shipping you back to your ancestral homeland when you put your ancestral homeland over the country in which you live. If you fly your homeland’s flag above the stars and stripes, it’s time for you to go back to your homeland.

So, if there were a different option, would I be supporting that option? Probably…but the fact remains, there is no other option. So while I never watched his stupid TV show and have honestly never been too big of a fan, I do find myself more aligned politically and in belief with Mr. Taco Bowls than I do with the other option.

And speaking of the other option, I’ll also spare you the details of what is wrong with lying to the American people, conniving to conspire to cover your ass when you have violated the handling of top secret information, as well as the abuse of non-profit status, using your elected office for personal financial gain, and leaving American operatives hung out to dry and die instead of protecting them. I’ll also spare you the explanation of what is wrong with marching in a gay pride parade while at the same time accepting tens of millions of dollars in donations from countries who would either jail or murder the people you are marching with. I’ll just ask that if you are voting for Hillar-ious, you at least take the time to read up about things like Benghazi, our policy towards Libya, Syria, ISIS and what the email scandal is actually really about. I truly believe that only 1% of her supporters have actually read up on all of the things that people say are wrong with the idea of her being president. Don’t let your view on one or two issues completely cloud your judgment on the bigger picture. Read and watch as much you can between now and the election with an open mind. And for God’s sake, if you are only going to vote for Hillar-ious so we can finally have a female president, you truly do not understand what democracy is about at all and should do us all a favor and not vote any longer. I also find it funny that the very people who are saying that we should no longer pay attention to gender are the ones who are screaming the loudest for a person of a particular gender to be president.

Oh, and I didn’t forget to address the last part of the Louisiana conservative’s quote from way back in the beginning, I was just saving it for last. And later, with a look of pained resignation on his face: “I tell you, people who don’t think this country is in serious trouble don’t know what they’re talking about. You can see it all over. It’s unwinding.”

I read multiple articles each and every day about the current state of the economy, politics, business and many other aspects of our life here in America and I have yet to read a better summary of the plight of this country than this man’s words. The average American has either no idea how much debt our government holds, or worse, has no concept whatsoever what all of that debt actually means for the economy and each one of us. With only 66% of us working and true unemployment well into the teens when you factor in people who are working less hours than they desire or for far less pay than they should be, we are in serious trouble. With a weakening foreign policy and even weaker leadership in dealing with those who want to harm us, we are in serious trouble. You can definitely see it all over. It is most definitely unwinding.

And that, ultimately, is why we need to do something different – why we need to make a drastic change instead of eight more years of the same shit – of the steep slide to the left that has helped to dig us into this hole where everyone just puts their heads in the sand, steals more from the producers and borrows money from other countries to give away things for free. It is time to stop spending our time concentrating on everyone’s feelings and coddling the whiners and get them all back to work. It is time to put America and Americans first again. It’s time for ALL OF US to be better off four years from now than just SOME OF US. It is time for us to move on from the anchors and weights tied around our neck by this divisive administration and it’s ridiculous view of America and Americans. To misquote the Joker, “This country needs an enema!”

Doctor Hillar-ious is just going to give us the same medication that hasn’t been working and hope somehow doing the same thing yields different results – and we all know what that action defines. Doctor Taco Bowls is at least going to try something new, something different. I argue that we should give him a chance. Worst-case scenario, we vote him out in four years if he hasn’t performed. Best-case scenario, a fiscal conservative and businessman actually fixes some of our overwhelming problems.

Photo is a screen capture of Donald Trump's Twitter post

Can We Talk About Spending Cuts, Please?...

We are going to be hearing some fierce debate in the coming weeks, and perhaps months, about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. While I do see this as something that we should be debating, the fact remains that the expiration of these tax cuts, as they will be allowed to expire by The Master and Commander, will only affect the top three percent of households in the country. The problem with the equation, however, is that these are the three percent of households that run the small businesses that create the jobs that we need so badly right now. I am hearing from the Master and Commander's Money Manager that they are now, after record-setting spending and borrowing, concerned about the growing national debt, and believe that allowing these tax cuts on people making more than $250,000 a year to expire will help bring down the deficit. Perhaps it will, but I also believe that the expiration of these tax cuts may have an effect on job creation by enterpreneurs. There will be a change in their bottom line and that change could result in them becoming wary of creating new jobs. Unlike the federal government, most people spend less when their income is reduced.

While all of this debate about the tax cuts is needed, I would very much like to see our government leaders, especially those on a particular side of the aisle, talking more about spending cuts. Spending cuts? In the middle of the worst economic crisis in history, with less and less money coming in, you want us to spend less? Now, that's just crazy talk, stupid constituent! There are so, so many ways in which our local, state, and federal governments can cut down on their spending, much in the same way that they have all seen the rest of America do during this crisis. We are not holding the federal government and this administration to the spending cuts that we should be seeing.

For a great example of government waste, I recently read a story about an Orange Country resident who was issued and received by mail a bill from the U.S. IRS for 1-cent. Now, of course, this is a drop in the well, nothing compared to other spending, etc. etc., but it is a good concrete example of somewhere we could start - proof positive that there are places that we could cut wasteful spending - most likely proof positive that if we are seeing waste like this, there is also waste elsewhere that we could cut.

So, as we all get caught up in this debate on the tax cuts, let's watch for the slight of hand and these politicians try to take our eyes away from where we should be looking - forcing them to spend less and save more, just like the rest of us are doing.

Don't Forget To Watch The Oily Magic Show Tonight

I've been refraining from saying it, but I'm just going to go ahead with it already. Can you imagine how apeshit everyone would be going with The White House right now over this oil spill were The Great Satan George Junior still in office right now?

I am hoping that we finally see The Magician grow a pair over this oil spill when he speaks to us tonight. It kinda seems like he's been laying the foundation over the past few days to finally get in BP's face.

While I do understand how after blaming The Bush for eight years, it can be the go to response for Democrats that are appearing on The TV to talk about the oil spill, but really, you are going to need to do better than that. We need to take a long, hard look at oil drilling, its regulations, lack of regulations, and lack of adherance to regulations. Blaming The Great Satan George Junior for this isn't going to get us anywhere. We need to determine if our regulations did enough, if BP met them, and what we do if they did not. We need to quickly ensure all of our offshore drilling rigs have met regulations and get back on track.

Another thing I have noticed that some folks out there are starting to do is to compare the oil spill with Hurricane Katrina. Apples and oranges. Katrina was a swift-moving hurricane that killed people who could not, or just refused to, evacuate out of its path. Katrina's devastation was quick and deadly - killing a large number in a short period of time. It's economic and environmental impact will last for decades.

This oil spill, on the other hand, despite the fast-gushing oil we see at its source, moved relatively slowly over the water. There was well over a month of warning to react to ensure that this oil did not reach the coastline. The spill's devastation will be quick and deadly to a lot of wildlife, but to humans, it's devastation will take some time. Economic impacts will take months and health issues will take years to surface. The environmental impact may be around for well over one hundred years.

But, if we are going to make a comparison, here are some things to think about:

- Think reasonably about all of the other natural disasters that hit America (hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and you will see that the response to those disasters before, during, and immediately after, all falls into the hands of local and state officials. The federal government doesn't usually get involved until the point at which the state's governor asks for federal assistance. Yet, with Katrina, the blame for a lack of planning, action, and response fell on the federal government, especially after the fact. Why was Katrina different than any other hurricane and who could have possibly known for sure what was going to happen before hand?

- This oil spill is different. This is a man-made disaster that occurred on federal "land" on an offshore oil rig that was OK'd by and regulated by the federal government. Do you see how this was the responsibility of the federal government from the very beginning? Have not, historically, the problems of the federal government fallen at the feet of whoever is President at the time?

- The Great Satan Geroge Junior called for a mandatory evacuation before Katrina hit, and while criticized, it is generally accepted that federal relief efforts were well underway four days after the hurricane hit with emergency funding signed and FEMA engaged. What is often overlooked is that both Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco refused to issue mandatory evacuations of the city despite being advised to do so by the federal government.

What is also overlooked is that in the case of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, standard emergency management protocol calls for local and state officials to be prepared to manage the situation for three days until a federal response can be made. That would mean that the planning to ensure proper warning, mandatory evacuations, and transportation for citizens would be responsibility of the officials in the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana, not the federal government. Local officials don't really get any of the blame for what happened before, during and after Katrina, though, do they?

- I must say that within four days of the start of this oil spill, I did not see a massive response from the federal government, i.e. the current administration. It really seems like it took them a couple of weeks to even get up to speed on what was really going on and about 45 days before you could see them finally realizing what a big deal this was going to be.

- Bush went to New Orleans eight times in the first 46 days, and was condemned for not visiting enough. Obama took 49 days to visit the Gulf region three times.

The Great Satan George Junior will continue to be criticized for not getting out of his chair on the morning of 9/11 for eight minutes and not getting aid to New Orleans for four days, but I do believe in the long run, history will better remember this oil spill and will better remember that it took The Magician 45 days to realize that this was going to have an effect on his Presidency...oh, I mean, the American people.

May 1, 2010

Not only does May 1 have a wide array of meanings around the world, the meaning of the day itself is continually being modified and changed, even today.

In recent years, America's labor unions have been using the "May Day" holiday to showcase the plight of illegal immigrants, attempting to stay relevant in an America where an ever-growing portion of the GDP is no longer controlled by union labor.

For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, we may remember May Day as the day the Soviet Union paraded all of its nuclear weapons through Red Square as the Soviets celebrated the might of their workforce and took advantage of an opportunity to show the evil capitalists of the world what would be waiting for them were the stupid enough to invade their territory. It's also functioned as a great way to showcase Kremlin power to anyone within the family who was thinking of questioning their power.

Were you around in America in 1886, May Day would most likely signify the day in which the workers rose up against the evil industrialists and sacrificed wages, and even some, their very lives, to bring the work day down from 16 to 8 hours.

As I personally plow well into my 13th hour on the job for the day, hoping to compile some blog posts for the coming week, I decided to spend just a few minutes researching a bit more about May Day in America.

The U.S. version of May Day can trace its origins back to 1884. That October, after having been unsuccessful in obtaining a standard 8 hour work day for laborers, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions passed a resolution that called for a general strike on May 1, 1886, should the 8 hour work day not be in place by then. When May 1, 1886 finally rolled around, the 8 hour work day was still not in place, so large numbers of laborers walked off the job. There were 10,000 demonstrators in New York, 11,000 in Detroit, another 10,000 in Milwaukee, and at the movement's center in Chicago, over 40,000 workers took the streets. Today, estimates put the May 1, 1886 walk-outs at close to 500,000 people.

Two days later, still on strike, a group of laborers met near the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company in Chicago. Most of them had been locked out of their jobs since February in a labor dispute, replaced by non-union workers. While some non-union workers joined the strike on May 1, on May 3, there was still a good-sized non-union work force working at the company. When the end-of-the-workday bell sounded on May 3, union workers surged towards non-union workers and were fired upon by police. Two union workers were killed.

Outraged at this police action, anarchists who had been inciting both sides throughout the past few days, distributed flyers for a rally to be held on May 4 to protest the action of police and strikebreakers. Remarkably, the rally itself was very peaceful, but unfortunately, as the last speaker was finishing up his speech, a pipe bomb was thrown at a police line, killing an officer and wounding a number of others. Police fired on the crowd and an all-out riot ensued.

Eight men were arrested as being responsible for the incident, known as the Haymarket Affair. Seven were convicted and sentenced to death. Two men had their sentences commuted to life in prison, one man killed himself in prison, and ultimately, four were hanged for the death of the police officer.

I've done my best to summarize the Haymarket Affair here, but urge you to read more about it. It really is a long and complicated part of American history.

Despite the setbacks to American Labor Unions with the May Day strike in 1886, the unions continued to fight and many laborers in a number of industries were granted shorter and shorter work days, until, in 1916, the U.S. Adamson Act established the 8 hour work day for railroad workers. This was the first federal law that regulated the hours of workers in private companies. Then, in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act under the New Deal, established the 8 hour work day for all Americans.

This is a truly fascinating story. I am more and more amazed with the more that I read. Most fascinating, clearly, is how the push and pull of outside influences helped to shape American labor policy. As many of you know, despite my interest in this segment of history, I continue to be troubled by the roles of labor unions and their leadership in the American landscape today.

As a six-month member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (1990, when I was 15 years-old) who gave well over 50% of the first paycheck I earned in my life to a labor union, let me be the first to stand up and say that while I understand there is a role for unions today in some circles, I tend to agree with the fact that, in many cases, they are just no longer needed.

Following my first job at Lucky's Grocery Store, during which I was required to be a member of the UFCW, I have gone on to what I believe to be a rather good career and a decent wage and decent work load, despite the fact that I have spent close to 20 years now as a non-union worker. I've watched strike after strike over the years and partially agreed with some, but honestly, for the most part, completely disagreed with most of them.

I think my biggest problem with labor unions is the political spin they tend to put on things. I think union members tend to believe that unions care much more about them and their families than they really do. Unions claim time and time again that strikes are not about the money, but I tend to disagree with that statement.

Unions use political posturing and political pressure to in turn get union members what they want so union leadership will appear to care, all the while, relying on the workers themselves for their own salaries.

The recent large May Day rallies that are put on by the labor unions, anarchists, and communists that sucker workers into marching for their "rights" have really helped to solidify my position on the labor unions and their May Day holiday. As I felt with the UFCW strikes over the years, these large May Day rallies are exploitation of a group of people and a cause for the political and monetary gain of union leaders. I just wish more people could see through the smoke and mirrors.

My research also led me down the path of another face of May 1. Did you know that in the United States of America, May 1 is officially Loyalty Day? The holiday was first observed in 1921 as "Americanization Day" and was intended to counterbalance the celebration of Labor Day in the US. Labor Day is an internationally celebrated holiday that was perceived at the time to be a communist threat to America. While May Day's modern origins were here at home in 1886, by 1921, the day was being celebrated around the world as Labor Day, particularly by the growing communist world.

Loyalty Day was enacted as an official holiday in 1958 by President Eisenhower and first officially observed in 1959. Today, Loyalty Day is celebrated with parades and ceremonies in several U.S. communities, although many people in the United States remain unaware of it. Although a legal holiday, it is not a federal holiday, and is not commonly observed. Well, guess who is going to start observing Loyalty Day today?

I join a host of Eisenhower's successors who issued official proclamations in support of Loyalty Day, including H.W. Bush, The Great Satan George Junior, Uncle Ronnie, Gerry Ford, and even...are you ready for it?....JFK and Willy Jeff.

So, this year on yet another exploitative May Day, as I have been up for about 20-and-a-half-hours (working close to 17 of them), I am already celebrating the second hour of Loyalty Day! Loyalty to these United States of America. Loyalty to capitalism. Loyalty to the values that built this nation. Loyalty to the law of the land, which I have been known to adhere to on 99.9% of occasions.

Why The U.S. President Should Not Bow To World Leaders

I know I am about a week late, but I feel the need to chime in on the picture of The Magician bowing before Japanese Emperor Akihito that is floating around on the Internet, and the grumbling over the image that is going on across America.

The picture shows The Magician bowing, almost at a 90-degree angle with his head down before the Japanese Emperor. The proper way to bow to a peer is to keep your head up, look forward with your eyes looking directly at the person you are bowing to, both of you bowing at the same time, both of you bowing to an equal level, and in this case, regardless of height difference. If the other person chooses to not look up at you or bow down further than you, then that is their choice, but you should not do so under any circumstance, especially if you are the President of the United States of America. Make no mistake about it. The bow in this picture is how you would bow to show respect to someone above you, or to show your submission.

I think that someone in his staff should have briefed The Magician on this beforehand, and maybe even practiced it with him. The briefing should have touched on ensuring that he sent a message that he is on a level playing field, but I am afraid that The Magician was probably briefed with more of a stance that ensured proper respect was shown, even to the extent of it erring on the side of submission. That, my friends, was the mistake in this situation.

Let's bear in mind that a lot of what is circulating around the web is a still image, so we must be considerate of the fact that this is one frame in what was a fairly quick action, but the fact remains, these still images do now exist and are making their way around the world, and they show, unmistakably, the President of the United States of America bowing submissively before the Japanese Emperor.

I think most Americans are not necessarily bothered by the fact that The Magician would bow to a world leader out of respect, but it is the interpretation of him bowing so low in front of another world leader that is causing the uproar, especially among folks on my side of the aisle. Any sitting U.S. President should show respect to the Queen of England, but not take a knee before her. These pictures show the President of the United States of America making a very similar gesture as kneeling before the Queen in bowing in that manner before the Japanese Emporer.

You take this incident in conjunction with the already infamous bow before the King of Saudi Arabia and the infamous exchange with Hugo Chavez at the U.N., and you have the makings of a very strong case that the United States of America no longer considers itself to be a world leader, the world's sole remaining Super Power, but in fact, an America that is not only possibly on a level playing field with all of the world, but on its way to being someone's whipping boy. I, for one, do not like this message.

These, in my opinion, are prime examples of why the arguments were being made that The Magician was not ready for this post. Call the Great Satan George Junior all that you want to, but that man never put this country in a position of submission at any point during his eight years in office, even with the King of Saudi Arabia, who for all intents and purposes was one of his father's peers and associates.

The bottom line is that in just his first year in office, The Magician is sending a very clear message to leaders around the world, and yes, our enemies around the world, that the United States of America is no longer a power to be reckoned with; that we are no longer a shining beacon on a hill, but simply another suburbanite in the world's neighborhood.

The Geneva Conventions...

The Geneva Conventions are a series of international treaties designed to lessen some of the horrors of warfare. They were first adopted over a century ago and expanded over the years. The conventions prohibit torture, the taking of hostages, mass deportations, summary executions, and other atrocities. The conventions state prisoners “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion, or faith, sex, birth or wealth.” More than 190 nations, including the U.S. have signed on to follow the conventions.

The Geneva Conventions were created in 1859 by a Swiss businessman named Henri Dunant who, while seeking an audience with Napoleon II, witnessed horrible atrocities on the Battlefield of Solferino. On the Battlefied of Solferino, the Italian state of Piedmont was fighting the Austrians for independence. On a day where 40,000 men were killed or wounded, Dunant witnessed injured soldiers who were abandoned and left for dead in vast, stinking cesspools of vermin-infested filth and rotting bodies.

Dunant resolved to stop such misery from ever happening again and upon returning home, mobilized government officials, lawyers, and industrialists to convene a “Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field.”

The resulting treaty, signed in Geneva in 1864 by 12 nations, was the first to ever declare that injured or sick combatants must be cared for. For his efforts, Dunant shared in the first Nobel Peace Prize, in 1901.

The Second Geneva Convention, which was held in 1906, extended compassionate treatment to combatants at sea, not just those on the field.

The Third Geneva Convention, which was held in 1929, required that belligerents treat prisoners of war respectfully, supply information about their status to their nations of origin, and permit visits from representatives of neutral states.

Following the horrors of World War II, the Fourth Geneva Convention was convened in 1949 and it was declared that POWs must receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment; have access to mail; and be allowed to worship as they please.

The treaty also specifies that prisoners cannot be used as human shields, forced into dangerous work, or subjected to medical experimentation. The signatory nations thought that in 1949, they had everything covered, but what was to come in the years of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the conflicts of the Middle East, was new type of warfare where combatants didn’t always wear uniforms and march under the flag of a sovereign nation, recognized by other nations of the world.

In 1977, the so-called Fifth Geneva Convention, amendments governing “wars of self-determination” and civil wars were added. Under these protocols, combatants are “obliged to distinguish themselves” from civilians and carry weapons openly. A captured fighter who fails to do so is not considered a POW under the treaty. In a contradiction, however, a combatant that does not identify him or herself as a combatants is still supposed to receive “protections equivalent in all respects” to those given to POWs.

The 1977 amendments also state that a combatant can be deemed a POW of fighting “against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes.”

So, why is the 1977 convention called the “so-called Fifth Geneva Convention? It is because only 160 nations, not the full 190 nations ratified the 1977 protocols.

Here in the U.S, we have only signed on the first four conventions and never agreed to follow the amendments of 1977. It is the current policy of the United States, and always has been the policy of the United States, to not classify combatants that are not in uniform, do not carry their weapons openly, or attack civilian targets, as POWs.

Though the current Bush White House seems to get the credit for making this policy, it was, in fact, solidified way back in 1977 under the Carter White House, when the U.S. did not ratify the so-called Fifth Geneva Convention. It is this policy under which captured terrorist are currently being classified as “unlawful combatants” as opposed to “POWs.”

A U.S. Tax Timeline...

1913 - The 16th Amendment authorizes income taxes. Congress taxes income over $3,000.

1918 - During World War I, Congress institutes progressive tax rates with a top bracket of 77%.

1919 - Prohibition begins. The commissioner of Internal Revenue must enforce it.

1931 - Gangster and bootlegger Al Capone is convicted of tax evasion.

1933 - Prohibition is repealed.

1942 - The Revenue Act raises tax rates but allows deductions for medical and investment expenses. President Franklin D. Roosevelt says, "In time of this grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war, no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year."

1943 - Payroll withholding is introduced.

1944 - Congress creates the standard deduction.

1954 - April 15 replaces March 15 as the deadline for filing income taxes.

1974 - The Employee Retirement and Income Security Act gives the IRS regulatory responsibility for employee benefit plans.

1981 - Congress enacts a $750 billion tax cut, the largest in U.S. history. 401(k)s are introduced. IRAs become widely available to Americans.

1982 - Deficits soar and tax cuts are repealed.

1984 - Deficits still soar and more tax cuts are repealed.

1988 - George H.W. Bush says, "Read my lips; no new taxes."

1990 - Taxes rise for the wealthy. Observers later suggest that this hike will cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election.

1993 - President Bill Clinton signs into law a $496 billion tax hike.

1997 - President Bill Clinton cuts capital-gains rates and introduces the $500 child credit.

2001 - President George W. Bush cuts taxes and the IRS mails outs "advance refunds."

2003 - A 10-year $350 billion tax cut temporarily reduces dividend, gain and estate taxes.

Remember Where It Started...

As reports are being released and the quality of the intelligence that led us to war in Iraq is coming under fire, it is important for us to remember a few important things.

Most notably, President Bush did not undertake the gathering of intelligence himself, nor did he misinterpret the intelligence. Though we may all be in agreement that the intelligence was bad, it was not the President’s fault that he received bad intelligence.

The President was right to rely on the intelligence provided to him from the CIA, intelligence from the world community, and yes, even intelligence from the UN.

Also, it is important to remember that despite what the media is trying to throw at us everyday, many elements of the intelligence were, in fact, quite true. Also, it is important to remember that the US policy prior to President Bush coming into office was one of containment when it came to Saddam Hussein.

The problem with just holding him at bay was that he was in the midst of beefing up his long-range missile development program and developing long-range missiles with chemical and possibly nuclear warheads. The only thing keeping the Iraqi regime from being nuclear capable was purchasing the material at a time when Pakistan was selling nuclear material left and right.

These were missiles that could have hit Turkey, Israel, Greece, Saudi Arabia and other Mediterranean and Middle Eastern nations. Intelligence on the missile program came from the UN, so this is not a Bush-led conspiracy, folks.

Another key point to remember as people bemoan the quality of intelligence that came from the CIA is that the Clinton administration cut back military and intelligence spending in the years before 9/11.

It was the Clinton administration who continually robbed the CIA of the hands-on intelligence gathering methods of the Cold War that kept us safe. It was the Clinton administration that put us in a position where we were relying on satellite passes instead of boots on the ground.

And lastly, we still cannot ever forget that it was the Clinton administration that sat back in 1993 and in 1997 and in 1998 when U.S. targets at home and abroad were attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists.

Michael Moore will point out that the Taliban sent an envoy to the U.S. that was welcomed in Texas, even though they were harboring Osama Bin Laden, but he doesn’t mention that the Clinton administration refused time and time again to capture or kill Bin Laden himself when the CIA had him in their sights.