On Saturday, the Democrats voted 220-215 to ignore the Constitution and do what they pleased. Nancy Pelosi cackled and the Democrats put forth a rousing cheer when the vote total was announced. As Rush Limbaugh put it on his show today, many of the Democrats may have just voted themselves out of office by voting for the bill. Hugh Hewitt’s suggestion in his column today is to target the 20 most vulnerable of these Democrats and start a campaign to get good candidates and fund them.

I do agree with both Rush and Hugh Hewitt that many of these Democrats have just put themselves on notice as candidates to not be there in January 2011. I did a quick scan of the Democrats that voted for the bill and it looked to me like all the Democrats from Arizona voted for the bill. That would mean that all of them, except for maybe Ed Pastor, would be targeted. Ed Pastor comes from the most Democrat area of the state. Rep. Pastor could be caught with a smoking gun and a dead body and still be elected from his district it is so heavily Democrat. The other Democrats in the state are not so lucky. They come from districts that are more evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. That means in a situation like this, they could easily be targeted for defeat. The easiest would be Harry Mitchell of Tempe. His district is normally a Republican district. The others are 50/50.

The Associated Press reports that the House Unconstitutional Power Grab for Pelosi/Obamacare is dead on arrival in the Senate. The reports say that the “public option” is the part that will make the bill unpalatable to the Senate. I would hope that the bill is dead on arrival. That would show that someone over in the Senate might actually know what is in the Constitution. There are 219 Democrat Representatives and one Republican Representative that do not have any idea what is in the Constitution. Their job is to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. How can they protect the Constitution when they have no idea what it says? Maybe people should have to take a test on the Constitution before they could actually take a seat in Congress. That way we know that they know what they are doing. Right now, they can claim ignorance and they would obviously be right.

Even though the House bill is DOA in the Senate, I do not hold any great hopes that there are any Democrat Senators who are Constitutional Scholars. All of the Democrat Senators have come out for some sort of universal healthcare system. Since a universal healthcare system would be unconstitutional, they obviously are not educated on what is included in the Constitution any more than their House brethren. They just have a higher hurdle to overcome in the 60 vote minimum to pass a healthcare bill. That means that any healthcare bill would have to be less intrusive than the House bill that was just passed.

As long as we have “Progressives” in the Congress we will have to worry about this kind of abuse. Progressives do not believe in the rule of law. They believe in the rule of man. The rule of man says that the rules can be changed to whatever you want, whenever you want. The rule of law says that you have to follow the law as set forth in the original documents. If you want to change those laws, you have to go through complicated steps to change them. The object of making it difficult to change the law is to look out for the rights of the people that are in the minority. The problem with Progressives is that they believe that they are smarter than you and so they should be able to tell you what to do. The Progressive does not have to follow those rules because they know better and can decide for themselves. But everyone that is not a Progressive has to follow restrictive laws to make things “fair”. By making things “fair”, Progressives make things unfair. But, Progressives cannot see that because they are already on to the next thing they want to mess up.

Last week it was announced that Rush Limbaugh was part of a group that was trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams. I did not comment at the time as I felt things should fall out where they may. Also, I felt that the decision to allow the purchase or not would be based on whether they could afford to make the purchase and run the franchise after the purchase. I was wrong in my original assessment. I should have anticipated the race-baiters jumping in with their two cents. I also should have anticipated the other groups that Rush has successfully skewered over the past years to come out of the woodwork to get their licks in as well.

I should set out where I am coming from on this issue. First, I am a Denver Broncos Fan. I bleed Blue and Orange. I do not follow any team other than the Broncos. Second, I must add that the team I rooted for as a kid growing up in Southern California was the Rams. I still cannot forgive the Vikings for defeating the Rams those years the Vikings made it to the Super Bowl. The Rams should have gone those years. Third, I have been listening to Rush Limbaugh since 1989. I can’t listen as much as I used to because of work, but I still listen when given a chance.

My opinion on whether Rush Limbaugh should be allowed to be an owner in the National Football League is that he would help the league grow into new markets. Rush Limbaugh is the most successful talk show host in America. He grew from nothing into the largest listened to talk show host by hard work and an entertaining program. Allowing him into the NFL would enable him to help the league to tap into his vast knowledge of how to connect with audiences. The NFL does a great job right now, but Rush could help the league even more. Also, the Rams are one of the sorriest franchises in the NFL today. Rush would help the team gain some respect and credibility. Rush does not take second place to anyone. He will not allow his team to take second place to anyone. That will be a great transformation to see.

The race-baiters, Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson, have spoken up on Rush being an owner in the NFL. Both think that he is a racist and that disqualifies him from being an owner. Their only evidence that he is a racist is comments that he did not make. They also point to his comments about Donovan McNabb a few years ago on ESPN. Rush said that McNabb was overrated as a Quarterback because he was black. It was true at the time and it is true today. Many sportswriters put McNabb on the same plane with Peyton Manning. Donovan McNabb is a good quarterback, no question, but he is not on the same plane with Peyton Manning. There are elite quarterbacks that can almost single-handedly win games. Peyton Manning is in that group. There is a second tier of quarterbacks that are extremely dangerous, but require help. Donovan McNabb is definitely in this group. Also, some quarterbacks move from one category to another from year to year. Even Peyton Manning was not an elite quarterback his first year or two. All Rush was saying is that McNabb should be placed in the proper level and some sportswriters were getting it wrong. It had nothing to do with race.

The other race-baiting information are quotes, attributed to Rush, that were put on Wikipedia by an unknown person without documentation. Rush denies ever saying the comments. I believe him as I have never heard him say a racist thing in the almost 20 years I have been listening to him. Rush always treats his black callers and staff with the utmost respect. Someone who had racist tendencies would not do that on a regular basis. It is just not humanly possible to hide your true feelings with that much public exposure.

The other groups that are out to try and stop Rush from buying the Rams are the unions and others that Rush has shown to be incompetent or irrelevant in this day and age. They see this as the chance at their ultimate payback for all the pain he has been to their backside over the years. They have no rational argument other than to echo what the race-baiters have said. That does not give them any credibility. It just shows them up for the me-too crowd that they really are.

My analysis of the situation is that the people crying about Rush owning the Rams are not making valid arguments. They are making a lot of noise. They are making clouds of dust. But, there is nothing there when all is said and done. They have no argument as their objections have been shown to be false. In the end, the ownership group with Rush as a minor partner should be allowed to purchase the St. Louis Rams. Keeping the Rams in St. Louis will be good for St. Louis and Missouri. Getting stable ownership that is committed to the Rams and winning will make the Rams into a good football team once again. That will be good for the NFL. Everyone wins with the Rams in stable hands. Everyone, that is, except for the race-baiters and the jealous union thugs that have been exposed for the phonies they really are.

Will Munsil wrote an article for the ASU newspaper. In the article, he laments that some of the conservative voices are not giving the conservative movement a good name. He has a lot of good things to say about Rush Limbaugh. But, he dismisses Glenn Beck, Orly Taitz, Michael Savage and the “birthers” as giving the movement a bad name.

What Mr. Munsil does not realize is that each “voice” in the movement has its place. Orly Taitz and the birthers have their place. While it is not necessarily the face that establishment conservatives would like to put before the world, they are a viable force. Establishment type conservatives generally tend to be a little more liberal than the people that support Orly Taitz and the birthers. To people more conservative than Mr. Munsil, Orly Taitz and the birthers are pursuing something they feel passionately about. Whether it will ever bear any fruit is another matter and not even the point. The birthers build a pretty convincing case based on evidence that is available to the public that there is something to their story. Let them pursue this goal and stay out of their way. If they are right, the evidence will build up and say so. If they are wrong, the evidence will eventually lead everyone to that conclusion.

Glenn Beck does not have the same function in the conservative movement that Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager or Michael Savage have. Limbaugh, Prager and Savage discuss the fine points of conservative orthodoxy. Glenn Beck is not in that category. Glenn Beck’s job in the grand pantheon is to be the “Town Crier”. In early America, there were people that went around the towns that gave the headlines of the news. They were known as the Town Criers. Their job was to discover news and report it, not discuss points of doctrine. I am not saying that Glenn never discusses doctrine, just that his role is more of the Town Crier than intellectual. Glenn Beck has been warning America about things that are happening and are about to happen. He does that very well. If you think that he is trying to be Rush Limbaugh or Dennis Prager, you would say he is giving us a bad name. If you understand his role, you will embrace that role and wish we had others that did just that.

Michael Savage performs the same role as Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Prager. If you listen to all three, you would be struck by how similar their messages are. Their approaches are entirely different as are all three individuals. Dennis Prager holds an intellectual discussion with you on the radio. He appeals to your intellect. Rush Limbaugh is the showman. He entertains while teaching. Michael Savage just tells you like it is. You may not like what he says, but you have to realize that what he says is true. Michael Savage does have the problem that he sometimes comes across as too negative. When I listen to Michael Savage, sometimes I have to turn him off because he is too much for me to take. That never happens with Rush because Rush is funny and makes sure you have a good time.

Will Munsil is correct in that we have to wonder about the face that we put forward. But, before we criticize we have to realize the roles each commentator plays. Why? Because if you do not understand why the radio personality says what he/she says, you miss the entire point. The why is just as important as the what.

I do commend Will Munsil on his insight. Any time you write an article and take a stand you will start to take arrows from all those that have a problem with whatever it is that you say. Liberal Republicans want their candidates to be politically correct, so they do not offend Democrats. Just being physically present is enough to offend Democrats on some issues. In other words, if you spend your life trying not to offend Democrats you will end up being a nothing.

Glen Beck is still under attack from the left. In a way that is a good thing. It means that he is being effective in finding the skeletons in their closet. It is also a bad way because it shows how many companies are spineless lapdogs of the left.

Glen Beck has a terrible time slot to get high ratings, yet he is now frequently the top show on all of cable news. Bill O’Reilly has had the top slot for a long time. Glen is now getting ratings that challenge Bill for the top spot each day. Bill O’Reilly undoubtedly does not like that, but it is the nature of TV that shows wax and wane in the ratings. Right now, Glen Beck is hot and it shows. Both Bill O’Reilly and Glen Beck are on Fox News. Either one gets more people viewing their shows than view the total of the top shows for any other cable channel.

The higher the viewership a show has the more advertisers generally want to advertise on that show. The reason is that you want to be seen. You also want to be seen on the “best” shows. The “best” shows are usually defined as those that bring in the highest viewers. A side note to this is that conservative show viewers tend to be more loyal than viewers for other shows. All of this would lead one to believe that advertisers are knocking down the door to get on the Glen Beck TV show. After Van Jones started the boycott, a number of advertisers have pulled their ads from Fox News and the Glen Beck show in particular. In my mind, those are advertisers to avoid. If they don’t want to advertise on Glen Beck, then I don’t want to buy their products. All I need now is a list of those advertisers and I can change my buying habits.

Why are advertisers boycotting Glen Beck? A couple of weeks ago, Glen Beck said that Barack Obama is a racist on his TV show. The next day on his radio show, he explained why he believed Barack Obama was a racist. Whether you agree with Glen Beck or not, he has a right to his opinion. Viewers have a right to watch his show after a comment like that. His viewership is through the roof. Obviously viewers are not put off by the comment about Barack Obama being a racist. Advertisers also did not have a problem with it until Van Jones started his boycott movement.

Just like I support Michael Savage in his effort to remove the stain of being “Banned in Britain”, I support Glen Beck in this effort. Whether or not talk show hosts will support one another is not important to me. I understand why other talk show hosts do not support Michael Savage’s efforts in regards to England. They believe if they put their support behind Michael Savage’s efforts then they will be lumped together with his views. I can’t really tell much difference between the views of Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. If you boil them down to their essentials, they agree on most issues. That is as it should be because they are all conservatives. But, they also all believe that they are the best talk show on the radio/TV. To put their support behind another host would acknowledge that the other host is important. Their egos will not allow another talk show to be nearly as important as their talk show. That is why they will not support one another, even though they should.

As a private person who has no ax to grind, I can support multiple hosts and have no problem with that support. I listen to all of them and more to gain as much information as possible. Dismissing one or more as unimportant would diminish my information base. When one of my sources of information is in trouble, all of my sources of information are in trouble.

Glen Beck has been exposing the circle of advisors to Barack Obama. Van Jones is one of the closest advisors to Barack Obama. After the revelations this past week, Van Jones cannot last much longer as the Green Jobs Czar. I look for him to disappear from the White House this weekend or early next week. That will diminish the standing of Van Jones, but will most likely cause him to work that much harder to stop Glen Beck from broadcasting. That will kick this battle up one notch. Van Jones has a problem in his fight with Glen Beck. The problem is that Glen Beck only uses highly researched information. Van Jones is using lies to support his position. Glen Beck is using facts to support his position. Eventually the advertisers will see the light and tell Van Jones where to stick it. Companies can lose only so much money over principle.

The yearly White House Correspondents dinner was held this past weekend. The usual suspects were in attendance. Everyone who is anyone in the news media in Washington and surrounding areas was there. There was also the usual amount of political types, capped by the President.

The lead comedy act set a new low for comedy at these events. She did have her funny moments, but really stepped in it when she started to talk about Rush Limbaugh. I thought that the comedy at this event was to poke fun at the current administration, not the past administration or the opposition. But, when she talked about Rush, she started getting personal. She accused him of being the 20^th hijacker but could not make it because he was high on drugs. To a liberal, that might have been funny. At the dinner, most of the audience laughed. Some made their disapproval known with a chorus of “boos". But, she then got even worse by wishing Rush would die of kidney failure. Now, you may wish someone were dead, but it is not a joking matter and you do not say it in front of the President.

Much is being said on the talk shows about this problem with the “jokes” in the comedy act. They were not funny and were not really intended to be funny. Putting them in a comedy act gives you cover in case they turn out to be offensive. You can claim that it was just part of a joke. You could tell from how she said the remarks that she really did mean what she said. That people laughed showed how sick the audience is. You do not wish someone were dead in a joke. That is not funny, no matter who it is and no matter what the situation.

When performing in front of an audience, you should have a standard of behavior that says that you will not intentionally offend anyone. The remarks about Rush were bound to offend some people, regardless of their political affiliation. The standard of behavior should go up when performing in front of the President, not down. If you respect the office of the President of the United States, you should treat whoever holds or has held that office with respect. That means that you have a higher standard of behavior that is expected of you when you say or do something in front of the President than when you are with anyone else. She lowered her standards to the lowest level of the gutter, not a smart thing to do.

Had she said things like that against people that are on the left, I would have the same reaction. There are some things that are not funny and should not be attempted. The politics of personal destruction should not be attempted in comedy clubs. If your neighbor wants to do it in your house at a party, that is one thing. To do it in public in front of the TV is quite another. She probably feels like she really said something clever because she has everyone talking about it today. What she does not realize is that we feel sorry for her because she is not intelligent enough to realize that she did something incredibly stupid and tacky.

Dennis Prager said that he holds himself to a higher standard when he comes to the radio station. He makes sure that he dresses in nice clothes. He could wear cutoffs and a T-shirt, but he does not do it. He feels it is part of his integrity to try to live to a higher standard when performing. I tend to do much the same thing. When I go to work, I could wear shorts and a T-shirt because I work in the lab and with an autoclave. Those are dusty, dirty and hot jobs. I wear nice pants and a nice shirt so that I look professional at all times. I feel that it helps me maintain a higher standard of behavior. It also makes the lab look like a better place to work if we dress nicely. That is the kind of thing I am talking about. The same idea holds when using speech.  

On the way to work on Thursday, I listened to Mike Gallagher. He played a clip of a TV appearance he had with a Democrat operative. I do not remember the name of the operative and it is not important. But, she was intent to make the point that Rush Limbaugh was the head of the Republican Party and that he was the Warden.

Mike Gallagher tried to dissuade her of her misguided idea to no avail. She had been programmed to say those two things and she repeated them over and over. Her comments were said in a very dark fashion. Mike Gallagher was laughing and having a good time. Her idea that Republicans were somehow in “prison” was not going to sell with someone like Mike Gallagher as the person you are talking to. He is too happy and friendly.

But, in going with her theme of the Republicans being in “prison” and Rush Limbaugh being the Warden, who else tells his “prisoners” what they need to do to break free. The Republicans are in bondage to Democrat socialist agenda items. Every day Rush Limbaugh tells his audience what they need to do to break free of socialism.

The Democrat operative tried to say that the Republicans are where they are because of Rush Limbaugh. That could not be farther from the truth. The Republicans are where they are politically because they have not been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt and the other conservative talk show hosts. I might make a correction to that last statement. They might have been listening, but they did not act upon the information they were given in all those radio talk shows. Had they listened, the Republican Party would have a majority in the House and Senate and there would be a Republican President in the White House. I am not saying that everything that the talk show hosts say is perfect and should be implemented, but most of it should.

What the Republicans need to do is get the best Republican thinkers together and have them come up with something like the Contract with America that Newt Gingrich did in 1994. A new Contract with America will not work. It worked once and it will probably not work twice. But, having all Republicans working from the same playbook would be a real change. The one thing you can say about the Republican Party is that they do not have a common playbook. That is why the Contract with America worked so well. Everyone was on the same page in their discussions and the country was in total shock that Republicans actually agreed on something for a change. Democrats always work as a top down authoritarian party. All Democrats are given their playbook and are expected to follow it to the letter. Republicans on the other hand do not give anyone marching orders and this has caused mass confusion at times.

These best thinkers should include ALL Republican thinkers, including the leading talk show hosts. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are the leading thinkers in talk radio. They should assist in developing any Republican playbook that would have a chance at succeeding. They talk to the public every day and know what the public wants and needs. They are not isolated up in the ivory towers in Washington, D.C. So often we think that only people in Washington, D.C. can come up with ideas. That is not true. When I worked for the federal government, the worst ideas came from Washington, because Washington had to make rules for the whole country. Rules that came from our state were good because they were local. That works the same for things that will work for the country. Washington based thinkers have a Washington based world view. These thinkers need to have various views from the country, not just Washington.

The Republicans can win again as early as 2010. But, we have to get our act together. We have to find good candidates and we have to fund their campaigns. We need a playbook that everyone can agree are the core issues that all can support. Then hammer the Democrats on those core issues until they cannot stand it. When we retake the House and Senate, we need to remember what got us there. We need to maintain fiscal discipline. We cannot repeat the excesses of the past 20 years. That will allow us to have the majority as far as the eye can see. If we lose sight of what we want to accomplish, then we will fall out of power again. Just remember what our lack of focus brought us in 2006 and 2008, nuf said.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh threw down the gauntlet to Barack Hussein Obama. He announced on his radio show that he was asking Barack Obama to come on his show for three hours, without notes or aides. Rush said that since the Democrats and particularly the White House has anointed him the leader of the Republican Party, he should meet with the leader of the Democrat Party, Barack Obama.

Obama is in a real fix with this announcement. If he goes on the show and does well, everyone expects that and so what. If he goes on the show and goes poorly, then large segments of the population will turn against his policies. If he turns down the offer, he will be seen as ducking an opportunity to meet with the opposition and convince them of the correctness of his positions. If he turns down the offer, he will also be seen as a coward and afraid of meeting someone who could discuss issues.

Rush is now on top in this tit for tat with the White House. He has given them a chance they should jump at. He has offered his 20+ million listeners to the President. If the White House accepts the invitation, the number of listeners will be more like 40+ million. That is a chance that any leader should jump at a moments notice. The problem is that Rush Limbaugh will be sitting on the seat across the table. He is a great talker and formidable debater. Barack Obama is not a good debater. He showed time and again that he gets off message and lost when he is without a teleprompter. If he meets Rush, it will be without his teleprompter.

My guess is that the White House will make excuses as to why they cannot accept the invitation. The first objection would be that they do not want to go to southern Florida to meet on Rush’s home turf in the Southern Command. Rush would undoubtedly agree to a change of location in Washington, D.C. or wherever Obama chooses. Rush has said he would pay for Obama to come to Florida and he would pay the expenses, so this argument is not really a good one.

They might try the security argument. In other words, they might say that they could not guarantee the security of the President in Rush’s studio. That is also another specious argument as Rush would agree to have the Secret Service check the studio for any dangerous items.

In reality, there is no realistic argument that Barack Obama could use to get out of debating Rush. His only option is debating Rush or turning tail and running. If he turns tail and runs, he will be labeled a coward forever by conservatives and even moderates. Liberals will still like him, but his popularity would severely take a hit. In my opinion, he almost has to debate Rush or lose the debate over the economy. To run is to lose to debate, gives him a chance to win. His only chance is to try and construct the rules of this debate so he could win. Rush laid out the most fair arrangement; no notes, no aides and no teleprompters. Rush wants the opinion of Barack Obama to be spoken, not the opinions of Rahm Emanuel or some other advisor.

I can hardly wait for this one to play out. With the publicity that it has had, it will be hard for the White House to say that they will ignore it. I love it when liberals are called on their stupid ideas. This is one of those times. Personally, I do not think Obama has a chance. Rush has a command of facts and figures that few others do in the broadcast business. Obama is poor in thinking on his feet. Those two things put together mean disaster for Obama should he choose to accept. Rush has also said he wants to talk to Obama, not some underling with no power or authority. As President Bush said one time, “Bring it on.”

The Democrats have decided to target the biggest target in the Republican arsenal. They held a focus group of people (probably Democrats) last fall and found that Rush is not that popular. So, they decided that they could create a new boogey man to scare the Democrats.

Rush Limbaugh is in his element when he is being attacked by Democrats. He just loves the controversy. The controversy brings him new listeners as people start to wonder about this so-called boogey man. When they listen, they hear a funny confident person that can explain things in a way that everyone can understand. That gives Rush a new group of listeners. Rush Limbaugh always comes out of these scraps far better off than he went into these scraps.

Just like when the Democrats were having trouble pinning George W. Bush down in the early years of his administration, they will have a difficult time pinning down Rush Limbaugh. Sure he says things that are controversial. He is, after all, a talk show host. The purpose of a talk show host is to gain and hold listeners. One way to gain and hold listeners is to say things that are controversial. Another way is to do things that are unconventional. Rush Limbaugh does both extremely well. His timing is always impeccable. Frequently, I have said to myself, “Rush, don’t go there”. Every time Rush has been right and I have been wrong. That shows that his sense of what works with the public is much better than my sense or those of any liberal.

Democrats always say that they are against targeting individuals and the politics of personal destruction. The Republicans always get accused of using those tactics. Yet, it is always the Democrats that are actually practicing the art of personal destruction. It is their bread and butter tactic. It works for them so well because they cry about how often the Republicans use it. So, the main stream press accuses the Republicans of using the politics of personal destruction and may even find one example. The main stream press ignores the hundreds or more of examples of Democrats successfully using the politics of personal destruction. It is always the Democrats that go after the individual first. Republicans usually try to stay on the issues. Democrats know that the issues are a losing proposition, so they go after the individual knowing that everyone is not perfect. If they phrase things just right, they could make anyone look like Lucifer, even if they are much closer to perfect.

The Democrats see that the economy is going into the tank. They see that the stock market is down to levels not seen since 1997. They know that their “stimulus” package will not stimulate anything except for socialism. They also know that socialism will prolong the recession and maybe even make it into a depression. So, they have to find an individual to funnel all their hate toward. The most likely candidate they found was Rush Limbaugh. The reason they targeted Rush is because he is the best at what he does. He is the most successful talk show host, by far. They also know that if they can topple Rush Limbaugh, they can destroy the conservative movement in this country. For all those reasons and more, they had to target Rush Limbaugh for destruction. They will put the full brunt of the Democrat attack machine to work on Rush. The Democrat propaganda machine, commonly known as the main stream press, will write articles that are negative and broadcast negative news. Democrat politicians will say bad things about Rush and take what he says out of context. The Democrat bloggers will spew their hate towards Rush on their blog sites. When they are all done, Rush will come out on top. He will win because he has truth on his side. They only have hate on their side. Truth always trumps hate.

I support Rush Limbaugh and all that he stands for. He is not perfect and I understand that. But, that is not the issue. He is not running for saint, he is a talk show host. The agenda he talks about is the agenda I support. I support freedom wherever I find it. I support enforcing our borders to stop people from coming in illegally. I support reducing the size of the government bureaucracy. I would prefer that we get back to the Constitution and start living by its ideals. If the Constitution says the federal government can do it, then I support the government. If the Constitution does not say the federal government can do it, then that part of the federal government should be eliminated or transferred to the states. If we start following what we say we believe, then all of us will be happier.

When I coached kids in baseball, I always told them to keep their eye on the ball all the way to the bat. That gave the hitter the best chance to hit the ball. Those batters that took their eye off of the ball and tried to look where they were going to hit it generally missed the ball entirely. In politics, it is much the same. Those that keep their eye on the ball (the goal) generally make it to the goal. Those that take their eye off of the ball, give ammunition to the other side to shoot you with.

During the last week, many so-called conservatives have taken their eye off of the ball and criticized Bobby Jindal and Rush Limbaugh. They criticized Bobby Jindal because he didn’t look right or he did not read the teleprompter as well as Barack Obama. So, what! It does not matter what someone looks like. It matters what his/her ideas are. Barack Obama looks great, but his ideas are poison. I would rather have the ugliest person in the world there if his/her ideas were more freedom and liberty. I would rather have a person that cannot speak a complete sentence without stumbling, if their ideas are good. A smooth talker with socialist ideas is not what this country needs.

People are criticizing Rush Limbaugh because he was too direct in criticizing Barack Obama. That is exactly what we should be doing. Rush has his eyes on the ball. He knows what the goal is. He knows how to get there. He has a vision of what America should look like if the constitutional liberties were given back to the people. That is what he wants for America. Barack Obama wants to turn us into a socialist nation. A socialist nation requires a dictator to run it. No republic can be a socialist nation like Barack Obama envisions. It requires a strong central government that is ready to stomp on the people if they get out of line. That cannot happen in this country today. He is trying to turn the country into something that will allow that sort of thing to happen. Which vision of America do you want?

We need to decide what we want for a goal that everyone can support. Then we need to start working toward that goal with all our energy. We need to stop criticizing those that are not perfect in their attempt to help us to that goal. People are not perfect by definition. If we expect perfection in our leaders, we will not have any leaders. We have to select the best people for the job and understand that they have flaws. If the flaw is minor, that person should be selected as a leader. If the flaw is major, the person should be rejected. Rejecting a person for their color or sex or religion is stupid. As long as that person is a good person and lives according to their religion, that is all that should matter. I may have a problem with a Muslim. Until I know whether that person truly supports liberty or whether they want Islam as the universal religion that person would have to be suspect. If they truly supported liberty and capitalism, then I could support even a Muslim for President. But the true test is whether the person holds the vision of America that I do or one close to the one that I hold. All other things are secondary. If I am selecting between two people that hold the same vision, I then start looking at secondary issues. The vision is the most important. We as voters have to keep our eye on the ball and find those leaders that have a true vision of America. Then we have to get them elected to office.

This continual criticism of each other is playing into the hands of the Democrats. They have a vision of America that I reject. When we tear each other down, we give the Democrats the ability to get some of the voters that should vote for us. We need to be wise in selecting these leaders.

In looking at those that are in line to take up the banner in 2012, some are excelling and some have dropped the ball. Sarah Palin is not living up to what I thought she could be. She is still young and inexperienced, but she is dwelling on the past. That is not good. If a pitcher throws a pitch that someone hits out for a home run, he has to forget that pitch. The next pitch is the new pitch without any thought of what went before. Those that can do that are the best pitchers. Mitt Romney is really hitting all the right buttons right now. There is still a long way to go. In politics, a week is an eternity. We have 3+ years before we select our nominee. Let’s choose wisely this time. Last time, we let the Democrats pick our nominee and look what it got us. Let’s have the Republicans pick the nominee the next time and I am sure the results will be very different.

Today, Senator Dick Durban of Illinois struck the Democrats first blow in the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. With all the flak they have been taking over the Fairness Doctrine, they have decided not to use the old Fairness Doctrine. They are going to go at this piecemeal until the job is done.

The first blow will be to make it a priority for renewal of radio licenses to have local minority ownership of the stations. According to Dick Durban, this is already part of the law. The responses to the change in the law from Rush Limbaugh, if it is already part of the law, why change it? The reason to change the law is obvious; there is too much conservative talk on the radio. Liberals dominate everywhere else in the media and that is as it should be. They should also dominate in talk radio, but cannot seem to break through and have a commercial success. Since they cannot make a commercial success, they will legislate their way onto the airwaves.

If this first step does not work, they will go to the local content idea. That is that a certain percentage of time that the station broadcasts must be local broadcasting. Dick Durban will probably also claim that this is also part of the current law. If it is, why change it?

It must be noted that no laws are currently being broken in radio ownership at this time. Every company that owns a radio station does so within the law as currently written.

To expect the big talk show hosts to go without a whimper would be stupid. If I was a Democrat I would use that against them. They are going to fight this tooth and nail. If I was a Democrat, I would introduce legislation that would put talk shows in jeopardy. Then, when the talk shows got stirred up and were working hard at killing my bill to stop them, I would get my real bill passed through Congress while they are distracted. The real bill could be socialized health care, socialized banks or other socialized program. When the talk shows defeated my bill to end their reign, they would crow about how they defeated me. I would be secure in the knowledge that I had just pulled a fast one on them. I am not a Democrat, I am just speculating at how they might think.

In defending the proposal he was making today, Dick Durban said that it was not communistic or socialistic. That is an unusual way of defending what you are doing. You must be feeling some heat about the Fairness Doctrine being socialistic or communistic to use those words to defend your bill.

What should happen is that the socialist NPR should have their federal funding removed. If they cannot make programs that people want to listen to, they should not be on the air. The same goes for National Public Television. Public Television has a lot of programs that are commercial successes, like Sesame Street. Public Television does not need public funding. It just has gotten used to public funding for its bottom line. With a little restructuring, Public Television could easily be made into a commercially successful TV network. NPR on the other hand would need a lot of work to make it financially viable.

If you think I am being harsh, I am just being realistic. The Constitution says nothing about owning newspapers. Owning or paying for radio or TV stations is like owning newspapers back in 1787. If the founders had felt it was a good idea to own newspapers, it would not have put in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Since it put in the First Amendment and left out the part about owning newspapers, we can assume that ownership of news reporting agencies would fill that bill. NPR and Public Television must be removed from the federal budget as unconstitutional.

We need to stick to the issue of freedom when deciding what is right or wrong on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine. Where do you stand on the issue? I stand where there is the most freedom. I stand firmly against the Fairness Doctrine. I would also not want to impose the Fairness Doctrine on TV news reporting as well. That would be exactly the opposite perspective. When someone says they support the Fairness Doctrine, ask them if they would support the Fairness Doctrine if it included TV news. That would get a lot of people to change their minds.

Last night, Barack Obama gave a speech before Congress in prime time. The speech was delivered in his usual style. I cannot stand the stops and starts in his speech, so I was driven to distraction. Others thought this was a wonderful speech. The speech was a typical Democrat speech; it had something in it for everyone and was short on reality.

The best part of the speech was when he said he would increase the size of the Army and Marines. That would be great. With the size of our current force, we are frequently spread thin. Increasing the size of the force will reduce that dramatically. There are two problems with this scenario; first, where is he going to get the money? Second, we need to have more people volunteer for the military. Current military enlistments keep up with current needs and would need to be stepped up to meet increased demand.

The first problem of where is going to get the funds can be answered in one of two ways; he can either reduce the size of the Navy or borrow it from our great grandchildren. He does have a third option; he could reduce the size of the seriously bloated federal government to pay for it. That is probably not an option because he talked about increasing about every Democrat program that he could find. Democrats would scream if their beloved give away program was scuttled to protect the country.

The rest of the speech was typical Democrat give away talk. He wants to increase funding for every Democrat program. He also wants to introduce responsible budgeting to the federal government to reduce the deficit. I am not sure how he can pull that one off. He just increased the deficit by a trillion dollars and is now talking like a fiscal conservative and balancing the budget. He could actually do it within his term of office if he introduced permanent tax cuts to people that actually earn money, not phony tax give away programs to people that do not earn it. He would also have to seriously reduce the business taxes, particularly on small businesses. Then, within 3-4 years the federal budget would be balanced because of the increased economic activity. He would have to put a brake on increasing any federal spending to accomplish this goal, but it could be done. It will never happen. His philosophy of government is exactly the opposite of growing the private sector.

This speech was meant to calm the waters. Everyone is supposed to say that it was a wonderful speech and what he proposes will solve our problems. The problem with the speech is that it is long on promises and short on reality. It will not solve any problems to follow this plan and it will cause a host of new ones.

To show the power of Rush Limbaugh, Obama even put in the speech a comment about America succeeding. This was obviously in reference to the statements that Rush made that Rush wants Obama to fail. That comment would not have been in the speech if any other talk show host had made a similar comment. Only Rush Limbaugh has enough power to influence Presidential speech makers to insert comments that are out of place in that part of the speech.

To summarize the talk, it was good TV. It was creepy to see Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden grinning like Cheshire Cats in the background. It means absolutely nothing for the economy. It means absolutely nothing for the country. The talk will go down as a missed opportunity.

On the way to work today, I was able to listen to Rush Limbaugh and I could not believe my ears. He was giving information that was contained in the Emergency Pork Spending Bill that has nothing to do with stimulus and everything to do with socialized medicine.

The bill creates a Health “Czar”. It is not called that in the bill, but that is effectively what it is. This Health Czar is supposed to put ALL medical records on a national database. After the records are on a national database, the Health Czar is to check to see that doctors are following prescribed procedures with patients. Unusual patients would be reviewed by a committee that would have the final say in the treatment for those unusual patients.

What this does is force everyone to follow one set of guidelines all across the country. It does not allow for individual treatment. It also sets financial criteria to determine if someone even gets treatment. The good part of this is that if you are visiting far from home, the doctors would have your records in an emergency. That is a rare situation. On the other hand, it causes a lot of people to not get treatment at all. The medical board would look at how long you have to live and determine if the treatment suggested is worth the effort. People would be expected to just accept the fact that they are going to die.

Tom Daschle set all this out in a book published about a year ago. He wants us to be more like the Europeans and accept death when we are faced with it. Americans fight against death up until the very last minute by trying every treatment under the sun. Europeans are prohibited from doing that by their socialized medical system. Tom Daschle wants us to do the same thing.

For as long as I can remember the Democrats get elected by saying the Republicans are going to take away elderly people’s Social Security and Medicare. Now the Democrats are taking away actual medical services and everyone is supposed to like it. Republicans never once made an effort to take any Social Security or Medicare away from elderly people. Democrats propose to actually take health care from elderly people. But, it is the Republicans that hate the elderly and want them to die. The Democrats are telling them to accept death and go off and die.

If this passes and an elderly person votes for a Democrat that person should be certified as brain dead. They have been sold a bill of goods by the Democrats for 40+ years and have bought into it. Now, when the Democrats finally have all the power they want they stick it to the elderly people that voted for them. I cannot believe that Democrats could be so stupid. Elderly people vote in greater numbers than younger people. But, I guess if they die off faster that demographic does not mean as much.

This Emergency Pork Spending Bill is full of other Democrat ideas like socialized medicine. The bill should be defeated and a real bill crafted. This Emergency Pork Spending Bill is nothing more than a Trojan Horse to destroy America. Anyone voting for this Trojan Horse should be voted out of office as someone not fit to hold an elected office. I do not care which party the person voting for the bill holds, if he/she votes for the bill it means that he/she has a desire to destroy America by turning it into something she is not.