What is the point?

So, a friend asked me this week in the comments on a political blog: What is the point of arguing?

By that he meant what is the point of arguing with me. That I'm obstinate and unpersuadable on the facts.

I was thinking the same thing.

What is the point of arguing politics online in this election season? There is no pont in doing it.

We are as polarized as it gets. We live in ever more segregated fact environments. You can live in your own news-gathering bubble that confirms your worldview and not need to be confronted with another worldview. Be irritated, in fact, by being confronted with a different worldview.

It's tiring. I'm tired of being told that:

- I'm a tool of the right-wing media

- I don't really believe what I'm saying but am just winding people up

- My team doesn't have critical thinking skills or,

- I don't know what terms like "socialist" means

- My team consists of bad / stupid / racist people

I'm done.

I have books to read. Unplugging from the argument...

Conflicted on Domestic Violence Intervention

You never know when you will have to face a life test. Whether you'll pass and do the "right thing". Whether it even is the right thing.

I had that situation this weekend. I'm conflicted about what happened. I'm going to work it out with myself by telling the story here.

So, I'm enjoying a memory-making moment with my sons at the library. Precious time together. I let them browse and use the computer search to find books of interest while I sit and read. Ironically, I chose to sit and skim a book that I had just bought for my Kindle - Glenn Beck's "Cowards", which is about people being too timid to speak up.

Over the top of my book, I see an argument blow up. A young woman is being loudly pursued by a young man. He's grabbing her arm aggressively and saying heatedly "you're going to listen to me". She's trying to put a newspaper away, and get away from him, and he keeps after her. Swearing at her, inappropriately. "You F*ing B*tch. You N-lover!" Based on that, the bald head, and the tats up his neck, I"m going to call him a skinhead.

I look at the two guys sitting around me. Do they see this? Yes, and they are turning away from the awkward situation.

She flees the library. He chases after her. Grabbing at her. Cussing at her. In the library.

I made a decision, put down my book, and went out of the library after them - leaving my sons in there.

I pass two ladies coming down the ramp into the library. They have screwed up faces, like "oh, that's unpleasant".

I go out into the parking lot and scan the area. There she is, running down the middle of the street frantically with him in pursuit. I lose them as they round a building.

I run too. Around the building. There they are, across the street from me - and across the street from our police station. Wrong place to pick a fight in public.

He has her by the arm, yanking her aggressively. "You're going to come with me, and listen to me!"

"Hey", I yell across the distance. "Take your hands off of her!"

Mad guy yells at me. He is way out of control. F-bombs are flying in my direction. "This is none of your business!"

The action moves around a parking lot. She gets up and flees. He catches her. I pursue. "Take your hands off of her". More F-bombs coming at me. I'm yelling back, but keep a distance.

A car sees what happens and pulls in paralleling me. Watching. Gauging the situation. Eventually, he gets out of his car and mad guy recognizes him. He's an off duty cop. Cop asks me to stand down but stay, and engages mad guy in a calm and professional manner. I stand down.

Two squad cars race up to a stop near us. Cops get out with pizza that they were taking to the police station, and intervene to back up the off duty guy. They separate mad guy and his "old lady". She starts going into "He didn't do anything" mode. I don't speak to her, but turn away from them and stay out of it. Uniformed cop comes and gets my story. They arrest mad guy. I go back to the library and get my sons to leave.

That's the story. Here's why I'm conflicted.

I didn't intend to get the guy arrested. I just wanted him to stop grabbing her. He made the poor decision to have a public fight in front of the police station, and ended up inside it.

Does the woman think that I did her a favor? I doubt it.

When I got my sons in the car to go home, I passed her again. She was walking down the street, away from the cop cars, looking lost and crying.

My heart went out to her again.

I know the pain of an arrest of a family member. It's not a momentary thing. It ripples through your life for months, years even. There are court costs and lawyer's fees to face. There is lost time in court appearances. There is stigma and turmoil. There is time served or probation. There is much family pain to come.

Again, does she think that I did here any favors? I sincerely doubt it.

I modelled for my sons that it's not alright to put your hands aggressively on a woman. Even "my old lady". Especially your wife. And that you can't look the other way. That is important to me. Yes.

I am conflicted tonight as I go to sleep. Did I do her any favor? I will never know.

Can we get this straight?

Can we get three obvious things straight right now?

1. Tim Tebow is on God's side, not the other way around. Stop badgering him with idiocy.

2. A corporation is not a person, the left keeps parroting in hyperventilating about the SCOTUS decision in Citizen's United. We get that. That's not the point. What is the point is this: if a corporation is taxed, like a person is taxed, they should have the right to affect the taxer, like a person has a right to affect the taxer. Taxation with representation is a basic American understanding. If you want to tax the instituition, you should understand that they want to contribute to the campaign of representatives, like people do.

3. Warren Buffett does not pay less taxes than his secretary.

President Obama is engaging in pure demagoguery with his Buffet Rule on tax reform. From the State of the Union address:

President Obama on the Buffett Rule: “Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

Really?

Common sense to most people says that Warren Buffett, one of the five richest men in America, does not pay less taxes than his admittedly well paid secretary. Buffett pays millions. Secretary pays thousands.

That's in straight dollars.

What Obama means, but doesn't say because he's trying to fool you, is the Buffett pays a lower tax RATE than his secretary. That's because his secretary pays at a rate for INCOME TAX of 25% or so, and Buffett pays at a rate for CAPITAL GAINS TAX of 15% or so because he does not draw a salary and his income is from interest income on his investments.

That's a distinction that many Americans do not make, and that Obama does not want you to make.

Is this because Warren Buffett is a bad man? No. Is this because Warren Buffett is rich and rich people are bad people? No.

Capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates because Congress set the rates this way.

Is this because Congress is corrupt and was bought off by rich people to get lower rates? I wouldn't discount that idea. But stop dragging Buffett's secretary into that argument.

The reason capital gains tax RATES are lower than income tax RATES is because we are trying to influence behavior with the tax codes. In this case, we are trying to encourage investment - which creates jobs. It goes with the saying that "what you subsidize, you get more of". In this case, we are subsidizing investments with a lower tax rate because investments are a good thing. Raise the rates to the same rates as income tax and you might disincentivize investment, and get less investment, and get less job opportunity. Is that what you want to accomplish with your class warfare demagoguery, Mr. President? Less investment and less job opportunity?

People, think through this nonsense. Don't reward the demogogues. Leave Tim Tebow alone. Quit hyperventilating about Citizens United. And stop falling for Obama's Buffett Rule nonsens. Wake up.

The GOP Cage Match Continues...

Call me crazy, but I like all 5 GOP presidential candidates still in the race - plus some that never got in.

And, I like the competitive primary that we have had so far. So many debates sharpen up the survivors and gets the eventual nominee ready to battle the incumbent.

There is no doubt who the nominee is. Mitt Romney is the next-guy-in-line, is the establishment candidate, and is the one who will benefit from splitting votes. All of the "non-Romneys" will split that vote 4-ways, and Mitt wins. If we could get down to one conservative alternative against Mitt, Mitt would be in trouble. That's not going to happen soon. Perry will peel off soon. But Newt, Ron Paul, and Santorum are not going to drop out to get down to one champion of the conservatives. Vote-splitting it is, and Romney wins.

It is noticeable that the Tea Party has been sidelined so far. How long will we stay on the sidelines? Not sure.

I'm guessing it will be mostly decided before it gets to me in Illinois in March. If it is, it is. As much as I want to see Newt debate Obama, it's not going to happen. Let's get on with the General Election and with the absolute imperative of defeating Barack Obama.

Debate Moderators as Extensions of the Obama Campaign

Did you watch the GOP debate on ABC last night? If you did, do you need a further example of liberal media bias?

Is the economy fixed? Is the availability of condoms the most pressing issue that the next president will face? Well, you would think so by the ridiculous amount of social issue questions asked by the debate moderators.

Where was a question about Obama's illegal nominations this week, and the constitutional crisis they represent? Where was a question on the validity of the Obama admin granting waivers to ObamaCare to their political donors. Where was a question on the DOJ providing assault weapons to the drug cartels through Operation Fast and Furious, and the deaths that have resulted? Where was a question on North Korea or China? Where was a question about the impending explosion of the Euro?

Why are they dwelling on questions about states banning contraceptives? Because they are party line liberals, with no clue about the pressing issues of the day. That's why.

Why does the GOP continue to que our candidates up for the biased moderation of Clinton-lackey George Stephanopoulus and faux-Republican Dianne Sawyer?

When will a candidate other than Newt rebel at the questions? When will one say "Are you kidding me? You're asking me another question about gay marriage when we are 15 trillion dollars in debt and have troops in harms way in Afghanistan? You sir, are a disgraceful hack and I reject your line of questioning. We are here to talk about preventing bankruptcy for our country, which is where President Obama is taking us." I'd vote for that candidate.

When will we see a GOP debate moderated by Sarah Palin? Then we could focus on crony capitalism and radical reform. Put Rush or Sean Hannity in the moderator chair and you would have a completely different debate.

But, the GOP as a party will never do that because the party is run by beltway hacks.

It's time for radical change in this primary system, which fails us every time.

2 70's Flashbacks and a 2012 Prediction

I was a teenager throughout the 70's. I remember that decade, and its events, quite well. I had two flashbacks to the 70's today through news stories, which lead me to a prediction.

Flashback #1: Barack Obama fell below Jimmy Carter's popularity numbers in Gallup polling today.

Yes, that Jimmy Carter. Worst President in my Lifetime Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy is one of the big-giant-brains that Democrats love who fail in the office of the presidency of the United States. Barack Obama is another one. Carter, a one-termer, is a predictor of Obama's future.

For what it is worth, I saw Jimmy Carter speak in person once. It was a day or so before the 1980 election vs. Ronald Reagan. The media was calling it as close and hard to predict. Carter flew in to St. Louis, believing the Illinois and Missouri were swing states that would make the difference if it was that close. I happened to be working for McDonnel Douglas at the time and living in an apartment down the street from the mall where Carter spoke. I was a college co-op student, meaning liberal, at the time and I was vehemently opposed to Reagan. Though I voted for 3rd party candidate John Anderson, I wanted Carter to beat Reagan. After Carter's speech I had this thought: "That's all you've got?" Awful. I knew it was not going to go well for Carter the next day, and it didn't as Reagan won in a landslide. It was my first real look at how biased the media was and how wrong their polling was as a result. An eye-opener.

Carter is defined by his failure in dealing with the Iran hostage crisis, which brings us to...

Flashback #2:  Hard line Iranian students assualt the British Embassy and demand it close


Wow. Takes me right back to 1979. I remember the students taking over the American embassy in Tehran, and the 444 day struggle to get our hostages back. I remember the special ABC program with Ted Koppel that sprang up - and that I watched each night - that became "Nightline".

We're right back there. Only more so. The MidEast is as destabilized right now as it has been in my lifetime. Egypt is going to the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya to al-Qaida. Kuwait has fallen. And Iran under Obama's watch is getting nuclear weapons. This is not going to end well.

Which brings me to my Prediction: Barack Obama is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party coming out of their convention. Mark it down.

Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter. He's a failed president who will not be able to overcome 9% unemployment, or the international events that are spiraling out of his control. Obama has checked out of governing and is in the permanent campaign mode, but it will not help him. The more he is out on the stump the farther his poll numbers fall.

Newt Gingrich is the corresponding Ronald Reagan. He can paint the picture of Morning in America, and may well be the nominee.

The shocking difference in this Obama / Gingrich parallel to Carter / Reagan is this: Obama will not make it out of the convention as the nominee to battle Gingrich.

I know. I know. That seems ridiculous. He's the incumbent and the presumptive nominee.

There you go presuming. You're presuming that circumstances in November 2012 when the election comes around are going to be pretty much the same as the are in November of 2011. That things will be stable, and that stability will favor the incumbent.

Here's where you are making your mistake. The world is not stable right now. It is incredibly destablilized, and is destabilizing faster each day. The Arab Spring morphing into the Muslim Brotherhood Winter. The collapse of the Euro that's coming - will it even make it to January? The Occupy movement pushing on our already fragile economy. SCOTUS and ObamaCare. Iran's push toward regional hegemony. China's push toward militarization. Russia's re-emergence as a power hostile to the US. Pakistan's destabilization and anger toward the US. Danger of re-emerging civil war in Iraq as America pulls out.

September 2012, the date of the Democratic Party nominating convention, is a long way off. Events are overtaking our absentee president. Barack Obama will not be a viable choice by the time the convention takes place.

Mark it down. I said it here.

Revisiting the Birthers - and the subset of "Citizen"

So, a politically-polar-opposite EbertFest friend of mind Tweeted this week his disdain that a Birther challenge was back in the news.

Wait...what? Wasn't the Birther issue resolved months ago when Barack Obama finally publicized a long-form birth certificate?



Well, not entirely - as I read shortly after when my pre-bought copy of Dr. Jerome Corsi's book "Where's the Birth Certificate" arrived. Hey, I bought it already. Might as well read it.

When I did I realized that the first challenge that Corsi raised was not related to - and did not depend on - the birth certificate. Corsi was proclaiming Obama ineligible to be President based on a second reason, the citizenship of Obama's parents. A challenge never raised or settled.

Which is what has the Birther issue back in the news, this time with a challenge to potential Vice Presidential candidate on the Republican side, Marco Rubio - whose parents came to the US from Cuba before Rubio was born here.

You have to give this to the Birthers with the Rubio challenge: it is consistent and shows them motivated by constitutional issues and not partisan party issues. I, for example, dislike Obama's policies and probably like Rubio's policies (he's too new to know for sure). But, consistency says they must both be challenged.

Let's remember what is being challenged here. It's not whether someone is a good person or not. It's not whether they can be in the country or not. It's not whether they can hold almost all of the jobs in the US. What is being challenged is one thing: eligibility to hold on job in America, our leader, the President of the United States. A job which has a specific eligibility test right there in the Constitution.

You remember the Constitution, yes? It is our foundational document, our one touchstone. It was thrashed out by our Founders after they won the right to form a country through a bloody war where they pledged their blood, their treasure, their sacred honor. It was a document where the Founders had the audacity to believe that they could establish the rules for the country that they would leave us - something about "securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." - and for who the leader would be.

Remembering, of course, that they had just thrown out a government in England and were forming a new one they had an idea that the new leader should not have a dual allegiance. That the leader should be loyal to this new country, and this country alone. So while they grandfathered in everyone a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they set a rule for going forward - that the leader should be a "natural born Citizen".

Ah, those three contested words. What is a "natural born Citizen"? Some things to know about what the Founders thought that meant.

First, not all citizens are eligible. If they were then the modifier "natural born" - which modify the capitalized "Citizen" - would not be needed. Those eligible are a subset of citizens.

Second, as Corsi well describes in his book, the Founders drew from "natural law" for the meaning of "natural born". What did they mean, in natural law?

"The natives or natural born citizens are people born in the country of parents who are citizens."

So, "natural born" has two parts:

1) born here - Which is what the challenge to Barack Obama's birth certificate was all about. Note: naturalized does not count, as we all understand in the case of Arnold Schwarznegger.

2) of two parents who are citizens. Which has not yet been fully challenged. There are some indications that this meant primarily through the father. But the word is citizens plural.

Barack Obama did not meet the second clause, because his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a US citizen. Barack Jr. was a dual citizen at birth - US (assuming the first clause is true and he was born in Hawaii) and Kenyan/British through his father.

By this definition of "natural born Citizen", as the Founding Fathers understood it, Barack Obama was at birth not eligible to be President of the United States. That is not a racist argument, no matter how many times race-obsessed lazy liberals make that charge on the internet. It is a Founding Fathers / Constitutional loyalty argument.

And, it is the argument that Birthers will likely make against Marco Rubio if they are to be consistent and not partisan. Rubio, whose parents are from Cuba and were naturalized as US citizens four years after Marco was born, was also born not eligible to be President if this definition of "natural born Citizens" is correct. Citizen, yes. President, no. There's a distinction.

So, was this natural law definition of "natural born Citizen" altered by amendments or laws after the Constitution was adopted? Well, several folks have Tweeted me the 14th Amendment. But, as I read the clauses they are defining who is a "citizen", not it's modifier subset "natural born Citizen". Go read it. Without bias. It says citizen. So does title 8 and everything else you've Tweeted me.

In fact, an article link sent to me to prove Rubio qualifies had this sentence within it, but overlooked:

"Do you have to be born within the territorial limits of the United States to be such a citizen?  No, said the Founders.  The Heritage Foundation's Guide shows how the First Congress in 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born."

You saw it right? "the children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born".  So, the "children of citizens" was the compelling factor in 1790 for the Congress.

Is there established case law on this question? I don't think so. Corsi goes through all of the challenges to presidential candidates over the years, and there were more than I thought. None were challenged on the 2nd part - children of citizens. How many candidates have we had since the Revolution whose parents were born foreign citizens? It's just coming up now, with Obama and now Rubio. It's yet to be settled.

I don't 100% know the correct definition of "natural born citizen". These arguments are complex, and not easily argued in 140-character Twitterbates. Do the hard work. Read Corsi's book for yourself and don't let others tell you what it says.

And for God's sake, stop calling people racist over an argument that you don't fully understand. It's uncivil.

Should we care in this day and age and in this land of immigrants where a candidate's parents come from? Does dual citizenship at birth mean a dual allegiance that they Founders were keen on preventing?

Well, let's take the case of Barack Obama - indisputably a dual citizen at birth in the best case. US citizen. Kenyan/British citizen. Can you be sure that this "son of Africa" as they call him there, has as President only one loyalty? Can you say for sure as he's involved our country deeper and deeper on the African continent (spending to support adoption of the Kenyan Constitution, drones in Yemen, air power in Libya, now troops in Africa to hunt down the LRA - all without US national interests as verified by Sec. Gates) that it has nothing at all to do with having half of his family in Africa? Could you say that any policy of Rubio's regarding Cuba would be from an allegiance only to the US and not in any way to Cuba?

I can't for sure. You can't for sure. That's why it's important. One loyalty in our leader, and only one loyalty. The Founders wanted that, and so do I.

Alone and Stranded on 9/11

Remembering the victims of 9/11, and their families, today. May God bless the survivors as they were profoundly affected on that fateful day that asymmetrical war came to our soil in a dramatic and shocking day.

All Americans, I imagine, recall exactly where we were that Tuesday morning in September one decade ago. A day seared into our memory by the tragic and violent death of so many of our countrymen. How could we forget? May we never forget.

My personal story on that day is not particularly important. But, I'll take the time to tell it, as I remember the day. I was alone and stranded in Alabama. I was far from my family. It was fortunate that I was a seasoned traveler and could cope with the disruption.

I was standing in Germany on US soil on 9/11. How is that? Well, I was inside the foreign trade zone that is Mercedes-Benz USA assembly plant outside of Tuscaloosa Alabama. Our company had won a contract to provide services inside the plant and I was the project leader. I had lived onsite there for 4 months in the Spring of 2001 and I was back that week checking on our team and our services. I assumed it would be a routine and uneventful week.  Boy, was I wrong.

I flew into Atlanta on Monday, September 10th as I had done many times that year. I had flown at least 80 round trips in the year before 9/11, and I could walk through Atlanta's Hartsfield airport in my sleep. I rented a car - a Pontiac G6 I think - and set off down I-20 through Birmingham to the Mercedes plant. I checked into the Hawthorne suites across the road for two nights. I had an electronic ticket to fly home on Wednesday morning. I went into the plant for an work session Monday afternoonl, and had a quiet night in the hotel. Back through the gates into the foreign trade zone on Tuesday morning with my Mercedes badge.

I mention the foreign trade zone, because it had an impact on how much information we had throughout the day of 9/11 - which was minimal. Plant management turned off the TVs and kept the workday going as normally as they could. We had our laptops, and watched bits and snatches. "What, the Twin Towers fell? What do you mean?"

I had one phone call from my wife that morning. I could her how upset she was. I could hear tears and panic. "Randy, they are reporting that the Air Force has shot down an airliner over Pennsylvania!" I remember that statement clear as a bell - as an Air Force veteran. Shocked! But, we kept working and finished our shift.

I went back to my hotel at the end of my shift and sat glued to the television all night. Alone. Away from my family and scared for them. Stranded.

Stranded indeed. How little we knew that week. All flights were grounded? That had never happened before. How do I get home? I was getting snippets of travel information - mainly telling me that my e-ticket was worthless. Only people with paper tickets were going to get a flight, I heard.. That's when we still had hope that there would be flights. That hope dimmed every day.

What did I do to cope with that week? I worked. I dealt with the travel uncertainty by checking out of my hotel every morning and going into work. Our team did the best we could to support the plant, which kept working. I worked with the day shift team, stayed to steady the 2nd shift team, and then went back across the street and checked back into the hotel to watch the news all night. I didn't have a company credit card, just my personal one, and I was stretching it to stay extra nights before I could turn in an expense report. What else could I do? Wednesday, Thursday, Friday I checked out and hoped for a flight. No flights.

On Friday afternoon, I gave up on flights. It was extraordinary circumstances, and I made a command decision. I pointed my rental car North and started driving home. It would just have to become a one-way rental home, and the rental company would just have to deal with that and charge me what the would charge me. Whatever. I had to get home. And so I drove for two days. I stopped midway because I needed sleep. I made it home Saturday, grateful to be home with my family. Grateful and stunned. I could get out of road-survival mode and team-leader mode and get my bearings. And my wife now had help in coping with our children and their fears that week.

That's my story of 9/11/01. It's no more important than any of our stories that day. What was more important was a national reaction. A national focus. A national unity, however brief.

So, what did we learn that day on 9/11, and in the ten years since? President George W. Bush said it well this week, when he said:

"One of the lessons of 9/11 is that evil is real, and so is courage."

Evil is real? Yes, indeed. If we're not reminded of that every day in the small heinous acts that fill our newspapers of pedophiles or abusers or senseless flash mob violence, we are reminded in the big acts like 9/11.

Not everyone recognizes that evil is real, which is why President Bush needed to say it again. One of my favorite political pundits, Dennis Prager, writes often of the Left's inability to recognize or confront evil. Treating terrorism as a common crime, for example, as was our failing before 9/11. Excusing or defining down the motives of the evil-doers. Not being able to name our enemy - radical Islamic jihadists - because of political correctness. Sometimes I feel that more people believe that George W. Bush actions were more evil that Osama bin Laden's, and I truly do not understand that.

Evil is real. We got clarity on that for a moment on 9/11. I fear that recognition is once again slipping away. Never forget what we saw that day.

But on the flipside, so is courage!

So much courage. Courage in the passengers on Flight 93 in the very first battle in the War on Terror. Courage in the responders who went into the towers as everyone else was rightfully running out. Courage in the crews who cleared the rubble and the fragments of remains at great risk to their own health. Courage in our brave men and women who continue to enlist in a voluntary military and deploy to at least two hot war zones. So much courage. Too much to even recognize adequately.

I would add one more lesson to Bush's list. We learned - as the 9/11 Commission shouted in their compelling report - that there are people diligently at war with us even if we don't think that we are at war with them. They are out there every day. Planning. Preparing. Acting with a goal of killing us and our culture.

To those who think America overreacted to 9/11, I ask: how many blows was America expected to take before punching back? The bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. The first World Trade Center bombing. The Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed many of our airmen. The embassies in Africa. The U.S.S Cole and the sailors that died that day. Many are at war with us. Al-Qaida. Hezbollah (Khobar). etc. They are at war with us. Have we forgotten that in the decade that's followed?

We have fought back, gone on offense instead of defense in this asymmetrical war, and we have done so humanely as possible in war.

Do those of you who criticize America's response to 9/11, who think that we are the warmongers and evil-doers - realize how much power we are capable of bringing to bear on our enemies and have not? Do you realize what hell we could rain on a population that attacked us first? We could level their ass in layers of radiated rubble if we chose, and we have not. We have taken out the evil-doers of al-Qaida and the Taliban with restrained precision, not with the indiscriminate mass slaughter that they brought to our soil. Think about that. Think about the courageous rebuilding of schools and infrastructure that our troops are doing in Afghanistan at great risk to their own lives. We are the good guys. Why don't you get that?

It's the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Never forget it. I thank President Bush and his administration for their courage in responding to it. I thank President Obama for continuing the hunt for Osama bin Laden and bringing him justice in the form of Seal Team Six.

Never forget 9/11. Never retreat to 9/10.

Sarah Palin is Running

People, you need to trust me on this one: Sarah Palin is running for President in 2012.

No, she hasn't announced. Yet. It's coming. I'm sure of it.

I'm pretty well tuned in to a Palin vibe. Remember, that I wrote a blog post in July of 2008 - before most of you even heard of Sarah Palin saying that McCain should go see Gov. Palin in Alaska and name her his VP choice. I called that.

I'm calling it again. Sarah Palin is running.

I was in Iowa last Saturday for the Tea Party rally that she spoke at. Where she gave, I believe, a pivotal speech. Pivoting to running. I heard it live, close enough to look her in the eye as she gave it (and to get her autograph after). It was a campaign speech. She's running.

It was a good campaign speech, too. It was the bold speech that the party needs to defeat an incumbent president.

She's waiting to see how the GOP shapes up. She's in no hurry. She has time, and name recognition. Let the field spend itself, and the herd thin. Then get in.

I'll go one step further and say, based on the debate tonight, that the way the field is shaping up makes it more likely that Sarah Palin gets in. It's quickly narrowing, at least as the press sees it, to a two-man race: Perry and Romney. Bachmann fading. The others also-rans. That sets up the field for Palin because:

- Romney is not the first choice for the base. Not bold.

- Perry is the Governor of Texas and sounds like Bush, and it's too early for another Governor from Texas - especially someone who reminds people of Bush.

Palin is the contrast to those two. She is prepared. She is honed. She has the bold speech and a plan.

She's running. Mark it down. And mark the date that I said it.

Note: all photos taken by me, and I had a great time taking them! Photography and politics in the same day. Bliss.

SHTF Planning

I have lots of blog posts backing up in my brain. Global Warming & the GOP candidates. The debt Super Committee. Excepting the United Way.

What's on my mind tonight is my SHTF bag, or the lack of one.

Don't ask me how, but somehow I found myself linking from a Twitter post to a survivalist website called Survival Cache - where I spent an hour browsing around and thinking Oh My God. Weapons. Foodstuffs. Camping gear. Etc.

What caught my eye was an item called an "SHTF Bag". What I used to call a "Go Bag" or a "Bugout Bag". This is a prepared bag for when something Hits the Fan. What that something is could be a lot of things: tornado, flooding, anarchy. Whatever. Grab this bag and go - assuming of course that you can get gone in whatever vehicle you have. I miss my 4WD truck.

I am grateful that I seem to live in a US geographical region that seems to have been left unscathed by the natural disaster of the week on CNN. As the East Coast is battened down from a earthquake followed by a hurricane - yikes! - I am happily indulging my hobbies in the off-hours. Go bag resting sleepily in a closet.

Lately though, I am less envisioning the need for a SHTF bag from natural disasters than I am from the unraveling of civil society. Political unrest. Flash mob thug gangs. All becoming staples of our nightly news. It's only going to get worse as our debt crisis worsens.

Which brings me to the book I just ordered from Amazon for my Kindle: Mark Steyn's "After America: Get ready for Armageddon". Yeah. I've read the prologue already. Grim. Essentially he has the United States of America not existing as that within twenty years. We're well into the decline, heading for the Fall.

Steyn: "America has squandered its supposedly unipolar moment on the world's most expensive suicide"

I need to step up my SHTF planning.