The Barber Shoppe Gazette: Monday, November 06, 2006

Monday, November 06, 2006

Vote Your Disgust: Write-In "Donald Duck"

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: VOTE YOUR DISGUST - VOTE THIRD PARTY OR WRITE-IN "DONALD DUCK"

Etherzone

Smiley Flag Waver

This election, I’m voting for every third party candidate on the ballot. I don’t care who they are and it doesn’t bother me a bit that I don’t know much about any of them. They didn’t bother me with flyers, advertising braggadocio, and they certainly haven’t sworn allegiance to either of our malicious republican or democratic parties. We would be better off picking representatives by lottery, but that isn’t going to happen and this is the next best thing.

Wherever there is no third party candidate, I’m going to write in Donald Duck.

DONALD DUCK
WRITE-IN FOR DISGUST

~ By: Ed Henry

Wherever there is no third party candidate, I’m going to write in Donald Duck. He’s got the name recognition it takes to be a candidate, he’s honest, seventy-two years old, a sailor who wouldn’t “stay the course” when headed for a reef, and unlike Mickey and Minnie, he and Daisy are at least engaged to be married. They also have three nephews, Huey, Louie, and Dewey, which is more than you can say for the mouse, plus Uncle Scrooge who would make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury.

Most importantly, Donald doesn’t pretend to be something he isn’t. He’s a cartoon character that confronts things head-on with integrity. He can be amusing and serious at the same time. And he can’t tell a lie. His blue, white, and yellow colors do not change with every shift of the wind. When he swears to uphold the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, he’ll do it.

That’s more than you can say for any of the incumbents that have sold us down the drain, gave tax cuts to the wealthy while doing nothing about excessive payroll taxes, and are knowingly spending our supplemental Social Security retirement money. In my opinion, we ought to be sending the entire 109th Congress to Guantanamo where they could enjoy the treatment they’ve condoned for others.

I’m serious. Vote for Donald. Of course, he’s just a symbol -- that’s the point. Register your disgust with the present liars, crooks, armchair war mongers, and parasites in both parties. It’s better than not even showing up at the poles.

Just think about it. Donald doesn’t need money to campaign. He’s already a household figure. He’s never been seen with lobbyists or influence peddlers. He doesn’t depend on spinach like Popeye and, in fact, he doesn’t chew cocoa leaves or seem to ingest anything for sustenance. He has no need for thousand-dollar-a-plate fund raising dinners or ranch barbeques. If Donald had a ranch, you’d see ponds full of ducks and geese, positive growth in herds of cattle, horses, and there would be green things growing everywhere, not just sand and sagebrush. And he wouldn’t be sitting back watching others do the work or showing foreigners around.

Do you think Donald would put up with millions of sombrero ducks crossing our border five years after 9/11? Do you think he’d be invading hapless countries in order to drink their oil? Do you think Daisy would put up with him if he ran around molesting interns and pages? Do you think he’d build highways and bridges to nowhere? Do you think he’d sell our ports, roads, parks and forests to the Arabs?

Let’s get our priorities and responsibilities straight. I’m not the one who made a mockery of Congress, our legislative body. I’m not the one who conceded the constitutional responsibility to declare war and invade countries that did us no harm. I’m not the one who passed the Patriot Act and then after all the complaints about it passed Patriot Act II that went even further taking away liberties and putting us on the road to a police state. I’m not the one who authorized wire tapping, torture, and passed the Military Commissions Act that abandoned Habeas Corpus, the basis of being innocent until proven guilty. I’m not the one who allowed big corporate mergers and monopolies or gave away no-bid contracts and exported corruption to Iraq and New Orleans. I haven’t broken any promises, oaths, or made any "signing statements," and I certainly have not stolen any retirement money from America’s workers.

But I am the one who can show my contempt and disgust with our representatives in both the House and Senate and from both republican and democrat parties, not by staying away from the voting booth, but by giving my vote to a fictional character from the world of cartoon comedy. Writing in Donald Duck on the ballot expresses my frustration like nothing else. Fight Bizarro World with something bizar.

Donald can represent America the way it once was in its heyday when progress was measurable and the dollar meant something. Even the most sheltered and out of touch politician should understand that. And it will be emphatically driven home if the duck appears anywhere at any level in the election results.

If George W. Bush can grow into the job -- so can Donald Duck.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com :

Republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Political Sellout Of U.S. Property Rights

POLITICS / INTERNATIONALISM: POLITICAL EROSION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Jim Kouri

Smiley Flag Waver Both major political parties have leaders who believe in internationalism. And Americans are selling out their votes and their legacy for the price of a new social program.

In a speech recently delivered at the Tenth Annual National Conference on Property Rights of the Property Rights Foundation of America, international trade and regulatory law expert Lawrence Kogan discussed how misguided American internationalists are actually helping foreign governments and environmental and health extremists to weaken the US Constitution and the exclusive private property rights guaranteed by the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

INT'L. LAW EXPERT: US INTERNATIONALISTS SELLING OUT US PROPERTY RIGHTS

~ Jim Kouri, CPP
November 5, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

As the November elections approach, the overwhelming majority of Americans are totally unaware that their homeland as they know is being dramatically changed -- and not for the better. Both major political parties have leaders who believe in internationalism. And Americans are selling out their votes and their legacy for the price of a new social program.

In today's world, Internationalism is most commonly expressed as an appreciation for the diverse cultures in the world, and a desire for world peace. People who express this view take pride in not only being a citizen of their respective countries, but of being a "citizen of the world."

Internationalists feel obliged to assist the world through leadership and charity. Internationalists advocate the presence of a United Nations-style organization, and often support a stronger version of a world government.

Contributors to this vision of Internationalism believe in a world government, and express contempt for the US. For instance, Albert Einstein, a supporter of One World Government, warned of what he called "the follies of patriotism" being "an infantile sickness."

These US politicians are promoting the adoption of strict regulatory laws and flexible compulsory licensing mechanisms used in other countries within Europe and Latin America that are "known for their socialist solutions to 'deemed' market failures, populist wealth redistribution policies, significantly higher regulatory burdens, ideological aversion to scientific and economic protocols and the deployment of novel technologies, and slower economic growth rates."

According to Mr. Kogan, these mechanisms are being used to "indirectly take [away] private property for ... public use which also benefits new private owners. They constitute a new genre of 'takings' based on the 'public trust doctrine' that are specially designed to dispense with the need to pay 'just compensation,' and thus, to circumvent the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights ... And, such rules are being systematically imported into and/or reactivated within the US under our very noses."

"Perhaps the simplest way to appreciate the enormity of the problem before us," says Kogan, "is to conceive of the new genre of private property 'takings' theories now being promoted both here and abroad using the letter 'C' ... The 7 'C's stand for convergence of regulatory systems, centralized and state planned economies, communal property, control by government, circumvention of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, compulsory licensing of intellectual property which is the eminent domain of real property, and competition, as in the need for disguised protectionism to level the global economic playing field."

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not not for sale or re-sale.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.

He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Replacing Neo-Conservatives With Neo-Communists

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: REPLACING NEO-CONSERVATIVES WITH NEO-COMMUNISTS

Smiley Flag Waver Will middle class Americans continue leaning toward liberal Democrats in the thinking that the latter better understand their plight? After all, liberals' seeming disdain for private property rights and love of homosexual causes belies this notion and illuminates the reality. Liberals claim to be for the common man. In truth, they're only for the uncommon man.

Make no mistake, the liberal Democrats whose ascendancy seems imminent, led by Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, have plans for you. Oh, they're not plans proclaimed loudly from mountaintops because this might give the peons second thoughts. Nor are they plans whose design will serve us. But there are some other things to expect if liberals take the helm.

IT'S YOUR PARTY, AND YOU'LL CRY IF YOU WANT TO?

~ By Selwyn Duke
November 5, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

To still the siren of the heart and defer to the head is to seldom be wrongly led.
So many wrong things feel so right. "You know, I really told my mother-in-law off the other day and, boy, did it feel good." Of course, what has changed? Your mother-in-law is still the nag she always was. One change, though, is that now your family politics has descended into the abyss.
This occurs to me when I hear my political soul mates talk of sitting on their hands this election cycle. I hear pundits and plebeians both make pronouncements about how we have to "clean house" and teach the straying Republican Party a lesson. "Why, we'll show 'em! Take us for granted, will you!"
Now, perhaps my grasp of the principles of hygiene is flawed, but my understanding is that you can't clean a house by replacing the dust with toxic waste. So, let's see if we can learn a lesson here today.
I'm as disappointed in the liberal tendencies of the neo-con lot as you are. Personally, I'd like to be coronated king and have the Weimar Republicans perform menial labor around the palace. And maybe Lindsey Graham could be my court jester. But you know what is even more amusing about this fantasy than the scenario itself? It's just slightly more fanciful than the notion that replacing neo-cons with neo-communists will, in a political galaxy not so far, far away, yield better government.
Every election presents us with a real opportunity to clean house and House - and Senate. It's called the "primaries." This is when true conservatives, be they major party players or the rarest of breeds - a viable third-party candidate - can be chosen over inside-the-beltway retreads. And understand that when we complain about some of the Republicans running in the general election, we are complaining about Republican voters' primary choices. And the time to address that was before the primaries - not now.
And don't tell me we don't have the opportunities. Sure, such individuals may not always capture the backing of the intermittently feckless Republican leadership, but they run. And when the voters run away from them, it sends the wrong message. If we want to teach liberal Republicans a lesson, we need to nominate conservative ones.
One such opportunity materialized during the Illinois gubernatorial primaries. Conservative dairy magnate Jim Oberweis sought the Republican nomination, hoping to unseat leftist governor Rod Blagojevich, who I not so affectionately call Blago the Terrible. Instead of choosing fresh milk, however, the Republicans of Illinois opted for old cheese. They nominated Judy Baar Topinka, a political hack whose liberal views are largely indistinguishable from Blago's. Anyway, how it shakes out is that slim just left town for Topinka, and the Blago the Terrible infection will continue to metastasize, making it a very Ill-inois indeed. Hey, people get the government they deserve.
Some will respond to my point about limiting corrective action to the primaries by pointing out that the power of incumbency needs to be broken. But this is a self-defeating argument. After all, once leftists take the reins, they will enjoy the power of incumbency. And why should we think that two years hence conservatives will be able to rise from the ashes of our immolation and break a liberal stranglehold on government?
Now, if you're still sitting there with a red face, pursed lips and folded arms, thinking there is virtue in jumping from the frying pan into the fire, let's gain some perspective.
Things can always be worse. Much, much worse. It's easy to forget this, though, if you listen to the talking bobbleheads in the media and cast your vote based on vague notions about Republican mishandling of Iraq and the fanciful one that Democrats (a majority of Senate Democrats also voted for the war) hold a never revealed panacea. But, while the Democrats offer no magic bullet for the pacification of Iraq, they most certainly are the poisoned pill for something of even greater import: the Supreme Court.
If the Court hasn't occupied the upper tiers of your priority list, tear it up. Remember that courts can effect social engineering by judicial fiat, reshaping America for generations to come. And this practice, involving contravention of the Constitution and known as judicial activism, has been practiced incessantly by leftist judges for decades now.
The best illustration is a real life example. You may remember the Kelo eminent domain decision. This was the outrage wherein, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court ruled that localities could seize property from one private entity (usually a citizen of modest means) for the purposes of giving it to another private entity (usually a big business that would use it to make money).
Quite fittingly, this un-American decision was assailed from all sides, left, right and center. Despite this, however, most people fail to see the association between their electoral choices and such judicial abuse. So let's identify the culprits.
The five justices who voted to abrogate private property rights were the more liberal ones: Steven Breyer, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Those standing up for the little guy were William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor. The late Rehnquist was a rock solid conservative, as are Thomas and Scalia. O'Connor was a moderate who often cast the swing vote.
Now, bear in mind that President Bush has nominated and the Republican Congress confirmed two more good justices to the bench, bringing the total to four - one short of a majority. And with Stevens being eighty-six years old, there's a fair chance that Bush will have the opportunity to nominate that crucial fifth justice. Who do you want this individual to be? Another in the mold of Ginsberg, who once said, "We [judges, when making decisions] must look for inspiration beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations"? Or do you want a justice who respects the rule of law and adheres to our constitution, thereby protecting our rights? A Democrat controlled legislature would "Bork" any truly good justice.
A more recent example of leftist judicial activism, albeit on a state level, is the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in favor of anti-marriage. Unbelievably, after admitting that no right to civil unions or anti-marriage exists in the New Jersey Constitution, the justices simply decided they would trump the will of the people and become a de facto oligarchy.
As critical as understanding what happened, however, is understanding how it happened. The people of NJ voted for liberal politicians (even the Republicans in NJ are quite liberal) who appointed and confirmed bad judges who, in turn, issued bad rulings. It's easy to understand if you can connect the dots and follow A to B to C. The problem is that people simply complain about the C, forget all about the B, and then re-elect the A. Yes, people get the government they deserve. And if we don't deserve the C, we'll remember the A.
In the same vein, this past July the Democrats actually admitted that they formulated a "five-point plan for fighting state ballot measures calling for banning same-sex marriage." Please read the linked article. The frankness about their desire to thwart the will of the people and destroy marriage is stunning.
In light of the aforementioned, will middle class Americans continue leaning toward liberal Democrats in the thinking that the latter better understand their plight? After all, liberals' seeming disdain for private property rights and love of homosexual causes belies this notion and illuminates the reality. Liberals claim to be for the common man. In truth, they're only for the uncommon man.
Make no mistake, the liberal Democrats whose ascendancy seems imminent, led by Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, have plans for you. Oh, they're not plans proclaimed loudly from mountaintops because this might give the peons second thoughts. Nor are they plans whose design will serve us. But here are some other things to expect if liberals take the helm.
1. The border fence will never be built. Remember that it still has to be funded (there's some question as to whether it will be funded anyway), and San Francisco Pelosi and her ilk will never let that happen.
2. Expect an effort to repeal the partial-birth abortion ban, the law that prohibits what is nothing less than infanticide.
3. There will be efforts to raise taxes and institute wasteful, inane programs and politically correct policies.
4. We will be subjected to an endless barrage of witch hunts, investigations of the Bush administration animated by vindictiveness and designed to cripple traditionalist initiatives.
5. There will probably be an effort to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine," a mislabeled piece of legislation that would force talk radio to give liberals equal time. However, it would target only conservative dominated talk radio, while ignoring the left's hegemony in the more influential mainstream media.
This is just a sampling of the socialist agenda elements that will be pushed by the liberal Democrats, should they seize control of the houses. And this brings me to my next point.

Some say they don't trust Bush, as he has betrayed conservative principles. Okay, fair enough. But then, why in the world would you trust him to stand firm against an aggressive, relentless Democrat legislative branch bent on effecting leftist policies? Are you sure that he won't be cowed into signing even more liberal legislation? You must think he is quite the man.
We would do well to remember that the Republicans may be a disappointment, but they're our disappointment.

So, voting Republican this November isn't about being a party animal who imbibes ideology-spiked Kool-Aid. It's about quieting that siren and not mistaking perturbation for perspicacity. And it's about understanding that the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. It is said that while Ronald Reagan adhered to certain immutable conservative principles, he understood politics well enough to realize that sometimes you have to settle for half a loaf.
This sounds a lot better to me than stale crumbs and impending starvation. And I'd expect nothing else from the let-them-eat-cake liberals in the party of the uncommon man.

© 2006 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.

Selwyn Duke lives in Westchester County, New York. He's a tennis professional, internet entrepreneur and writer whose works have appeared on various sites on the Internet, including Intellectual Conservative, nenewamerica.us (Alan Keyes) and Mensnet. Selwyn has traveled extensively in his life, visiting exotic locales such as India, Morocco and Algeria and quite a number of other countries while playing the international tennis circuit.

E-Mail: SD@SelwynDuke.com

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below