Category: 2012 election

I just watched retired LTC Allen West try to provide some senior officer guidance to a second lieutenant type, Greta van Susteren, who, typical of 2LT’s, failed to grasp the point of the lesson. The topic of discussion was the lawsuit in Ohio filed by the Democrats to protest the additional three days that absentee military voters are given to comply with voting requirements. Greta kept protesting that she doesn’t understand why old people shouldn’t have the same privilege as serving military. Colonel West kept trying to explain why there should exist an additional period for those serving in the military in far-flung places. Greta, bless her inherently progressive, Wisconsin soul, just couldn’t grasp why there should be an exception for serving troops.

Nor did Greta seem aware of the history of the Democrat Party in doing its level best to negate the impact of the predominantly conservative, Republican-leaning, military absentee vote. My opinion is that she was being deliberately obtuse to blunt the effect of West’s comments. My long-felt instinct is that van Susteren is a liberal wolf masquerading in FOX clothing. To West’s repeated assertions that these serving personnel are entitled to a bit of an edge, she kept hedging until West finally nailed her with the argument that why should those who haven’t early-voted due to apathy be given the same grace period as those who haven’t voted due to complexities of service-directed deployment. An obviously flustered van Susteren spluttered to a close.

Truth is, Greta doesn’t get it, just like so many liberals don’t get it, for the very simple reason that they refuse to acknowledge military service to our country as being exceptional. Remember, these are the same folks who refuse to recognize the United States of America as exceptional. To these types of thinkers, our troops are unfortunate, misguided individuals being cynically manipulated by an even more misguided government for nefarious, totalitarian, political purposes. Many of them subscribe to the John Kerry view that those in the military are the culls of society. To liberals, we, this Band of Brothers, are the ignorant, unwashed, bad guys.
I’m too damned old and too damned fed up with liberal lunacy to fathom what it is about this Shakespearean quote that the libs never seem to be able to factor into their psyches:

From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition.
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s Day.

Liberals just don’t get it and now in my 71st year, with decades of that lifetime spent trying to make them see the light, I realize, they simply never will. They do not understand the bonds that exist between those who serve and I suspect it may be a deliberate obtuseness as Greta displayed tonight. They do not want to acknowledge the warrior ethos for fear they may have to then acknowledge the inherent conservatism of those who serve and engage the nation’s enemies.
Which brings us right back to the Democrat Party and their ongoing efforts to disenfranchise the military voter. They know that those who serve are mostly those with traditional American values who believe in the greatness and exceptionalism of this country. It goes without saying that our troops would not willingly place themselves in harm’s way and jeopardize their lives if they believed the basic liberal Democrat premise that America is the root of all evil in this world.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Democrats try to suppress military voting at every opportunity. That is why they would pervert the litigation, permitted by the laws established by the Constitution of this country, to deny the participatory involvement of the warriors who stake their lives out there on far, foreign frontiers, to defend that very Constitutional right.

In Afghanistan, and within our military, there is a term to designate the turncoat killings perpetrated by Afghan soldiers upon U.S. and Coalition forces: green on blue killings. I submit that the Democrat Party, in doing its best to stifle the military vote, is guilty of a Blue on Red killing of democracy as it pertains and applies to our military forces. The United States military establishment, past and present, should understand one thing very, very, crystal clearly:
Liberal Democrats are not your friends…

P.S. I love seeing Colonel West wearing those master-blaster wings on his lapel. He is probably the only master parachutist ever to serve in that nefarious organization. Good on ‘im

Thomas Lifson noted here yesterday at AT that the Democrats are unrelenting in their attacks on Mitt Romney for his wealth. OK, let’s take a little closer look at that. Mitt Romney can’t possibly be president of this country because he’s too rich, with a net worth in excess of $250 million. This fortune, built up over decades by Romney’s work as one of America’s premier capitalists and corporate creators, is disqualifying because he can’t possibly understand what it is to be just one of the people ?

So says the Democrat Party whose candidate for the presidency in 2004 was John Forbes Kerry, scion of the Forbes dynasty, a man with a net worth of $230 million. And interestingly, said JFK didn’t build his fortune from a fertile nest egg; it came in the form of trust funds from his mother who had married exceedingly well. As did her son, whose spouse, Teresa Heinz, has an estimated net worth of $1.2 billion. On their combined incomes the struggling Kerry’s manage to maintain the following residences:

Heinz and Kerry live an affluent life. They own a six-floor, $7 million townhome in Boston’s Beacon Hill neighborhood, a $9 million ocean-front home on Nantucket, a $5 million ski retreat in Idaho, a $4 million estate in Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania, near the Heinz family’s home base of Pittsburgh, and a $5 million home in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

So here’s the man of the people, a guy with a six-floor home, that the Democrats tried to run for president in 2004, who is somehow imminently qualified because he inherited a couple of hundred million from mommy, married a billion more from a grieving widow and has never worked a day in his life at building anything except bigger governments; but he’s just a hunky-dory representative of the good ol’ down to earth Democrat Party, a man of the people, right? The hypocrisy of the Democrat Party and their controlled mainstream media propagandists is boundless. What’s worse, they are totally and completely contemptuous in believing that the American public is so stupid that it won’t remember that the Democrat candidate for president in 2004 was a billionaire trust fund baby and gigolo who was so totally out of touch with mainstream America that many voters truly believed he really was French.

Yes, Romney is a son of privilege but he is also a classic example of those who take that privilege as their foundation and build their own better lives and bigger fortunes on top of it. Far too many other children of privilege are like John Forbes Kerry who take their wealth through trust funds or marry into greater wealth and then use it to indulge in an idle, dilettante lifestyle of dabbling in the law and basking in political privilege. We used to call these types aristocrats. Now we call them limousine liberals.

I simply do not fathom the failure of the Romney campaign and the Republican Party to hammer this back at the Democrats every time the Dems cite Romney’s wealth as a disqualifier. Were I an active participant in the campaign, every time some smarmy Democrat brought up Romney’s wealth, I’d respond with, “John Kerry-six floor mansion.” And the Romney campaign ought to damn well have television ads pointing out this gross hypocrisy on the part of the shamelessly brazen Democrat Party. Have the whole of you working for Mitt forgotten the old sales basic about turning a marketing negative into a positive selling point?

C’mon, guys, we, the people, want to win this election.

With sincere apologies to Mr. Kipling

We registered in precincts, so’s to have a place to vote,
When we served in far off Afghan, or somewhere’s far afloat.
We asked ’em for a few more days to ensure we made the count,
But Democrats tryin’ to block us, a lawsuit did they mount.

Yeah it’s heroes this, an’ heroes that, we hear it every day,
But it’s keep their votes from countin’ boys* when the heroes are away,
When the heroes are away, my boys, when the heroes are away,
They’ll keep our votes from countin’ boys, the Democratic way.

We vote mostly God n’ country, an’ our right to bear an’ arm;
We vote our founding fathers’ will to protect the weak from harm.
We mainly vote Republican an’ the reason’s good for that:
‘Cause we seldom find our views upheld by any Democrat.

So it’s heroes this, an’ heroes that, them Democrats do say,
But it’s take our votes away now, boys, when we’re off so far away;
When we’re off so far away, my boys, when we’re off so far away,
They’ll keep the troops from countin’ boys, the good ol’ liberal way.

The Democrats do love us, boys, when we’re off a’ fightin’ wars,
But it’s cut our budgets to the bone behind their damned closed doors.
Some even say that we should pay for wounds our service earned;
No wonder they discount us so an’ want our ballots spurned.

Yeah it’s heroes this, an’ heroes that, boys, all the livelong day,
But it’s sue to kill our votes, boys, when we’re servin’ far away,
When we’re servin’ far away, my boys, when we’re servin’ far away,
It’s our precious vote denied us, boys, the Jackass Party’s way.

* The author made a sincere effort to work the feminine gender into this poem and still honor Kipling’s original construct and tenor, a task he found beyond his meager poetic skills. There is no intent to disrespect or dishonor our female troops and their essential role in our nation’s defense.

This isn’t really related to the military, but it does illustrate how out of touch voters are with their candidates. In Tennessee, Mark Clayton won the nomination of the Democrat Party for their Senate seat. But the State Party got a bad taste in their mouth about him after they found out that the only times he ever voted for a Democrat candidate was when that candidate was himself. It seems that the voters in Tennessee voting in the primaries were so disconnected from the issues that they just voted for Clayton because he was at the top of the ballot. I’ve been saying for years that we need to rescind the 17th Amendment, and that proves my contention.

Anyway, the State Democrats announced that they’re withdrawing any support for Clayton because he belongs to a “hate group”. Which hate group? Public Advocate of the United States which apparently supports a social conservative agenda which has put them on the “Hate Map” of the Southern Poverty Law Center because they oppose same-sex marriage;

Yup, there they are among the white supremacists and the KKK in Virginia, just because they oppose same-sex marriage. Not that they’ve ever done anything to physically or verbally abuse any gays, but just by opposing the agenda, they’re a “hate group”. And the Tennessee Democrats are making their decision based solely on the word of SPLC that it’s a hate group to disavow their candidate.

Yeah, I checked to see if SPLC had listed the TAH Corporate HQs and Resort as a hate group and they haven’t gotten around to it yet.