POLLIWOG (Tadpole): the early stage of an animal that will eventually become a frog, hoping to be kissed by a princess, turning into a prince! POLIBLOG (Political Blog): the early stage of a center-right political blog that may eventually become a full blown blog of the center-right. Join in if you find any merit in the comments. If you are on the left and disagree, feel free to straighten me out! Who knows, with effort from all of us this blog may turn into a prince!

Location: San Diego, California, United States

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Silliness on the left of SCOTUS

Monday the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in MacDonald v City of Chicago that the Second Amendment (the right of the people to own and possess arms) applies to cities and states as well as the Federal Government - the latter decided in "Heller" in 2008. Dissenting opinions were written and/or joined by the four leftist Justices: Stevens (his last), Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

Jacob Sullum at Reason.com summarizes the silliness and shallowness (my belief) of their dissent. A sample of their logic and why it is silly:

"In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives."

What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an official church, or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide."

It is well worth the 5 minutes to read the article and understand the importance of keeping SCOTUS in the center.


Do You Feel Hoodwinked - Chicago Style?

Guantanamo won't close during this President's term. NYT hides this on page A13 of Saturdays paper. Think the White House contacted them?

Fortunately he is doing the right thing - but he's only President based on a boldfaced lie!

He gotcha!


Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Disclose Act Acronyms

The U.S. House of Representatives Democrats:

"Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections" -- Disclose

Debra Saunders in her column "In Washington, 'Disclose' Means Stifle:

"Democrats Intend to Stifle Contrary Leanings with Selective Enforcement" -- Disclose

Which acronym do you believe is most appropriate?


IBD v Krugman: You Decide!

Paul Krugman thinks Government spending is the answer.

Investor's Business Daily thinks Krugman is wrong.

Take the time to read both articles and see who you agree with!


Monday, June 28, 2010

Are We a Nation of Laws #2?

David Limbaugh explains how BHO and his Administration evidently don't believe so:

"Remember the popular motto 'What would Jesus do?' which was invoked by many Christians as a moral guidepost for daily living? President Barack Obama more likely adheres to 'What would Saul Alinsky do?' as most recently evidenced by his apparent defiance of a federal court order on his moratorium on offshore drilling. Politico reports that the drilling companies who secured the court order blocking the moratorium say the administration indeed is going to defy the court order. I'm quite sure that Alinsky would applaud this move: If at first you don't succeed through proper legal channels, proceed anyway, because nothing is more important than the radical ends you seek, including the means that must be trampled in the process. Of course, shrewd Alinskyites like Obama will always have a plausible excuse for their deceitful tactics. In this case, they are alleging newly discovered facts. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he intends to reimpose the drilling moratorium based on information that wasn't 'fully developed' in May, when the six-month moratorium was imposed. Quite convenient." --columnist David Limbaugh

You BHO supporters should be careful: you may get what you wish for!

H/T: The Patriot Post Brief


Are We a Nation of Laws #1?

Thomas Sowell is questioning our Governments actions - rightfully so in my opinion!

"[O]ur government is supposed to be 'a government of laws and not of men.' If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion -- or $50 billion or $100 billion -- then so be it. But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without 'due process of law.' Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference. With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution. If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government." --economist Thomas Sowell

H/T: The Patriot Post Brief


Sunday, June 27, 2010

Krugman: The Laughing Stock

This is the best summary I've read of Paul Krugman's misguided theories, which the German's are now laughing at - and fortunately - not following! How can he and our administration be so misguided? Even kindergartners know better!

Read Tim Cavanaugh in Reason here.

Labels: ,

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Kagan Watch #2

George Will in "Tossing A Few Legal Queries Into The 'Void'" offers some questions for
Ms. Kagan which I am sure she will not answer in her hearings, although we should all make sure she does.

Labels: ,

Mark Steyn Insight

Mark Steyn in "Learning the rules of an unengaged president" helps us understand BHO and is administration.

Typical on point and humorous analysis of our problem!

Labels: ,

Friday, June 25, 2010

Kagan Watch #1

Hearings on the appointment of Elena Kagan to SCOTUS begin on Monday. A lot going on so people are not paying the attention they should. Here is a good summary of her stands from the Washington Times.

You may agree with some of her historic beliefs, but two of them stand out for me that are tacitly unacceptable for a Supreme Court Justice:

At Harvard she deliberately ignored the Solomon Amendment - a law which made it illegal to keep military recruiters off campus - and kept recruiters off campus. A Supreme Court Justice with that history cannot be an unbiased arbiter of the law if she doesn't even believe in the law!

"I think the solicitor general's office should offer reasonable foreign law arguments." This is silly - and I know Justice Breyer believes this also, which just tells me neither of them should be on SCOTUS!

Prepare for next week by reading this summary.

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 24, 2010

"Obama's Greek Tragedy"

VDH summarizes BHO and the last 17+months of his Presidency. The title tells it all!

Read it here.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, June 22, 2010



Read John Boehner's comments which explain the politics. But NO BUDGET!! Come on!

Labels: ,

Monday, June 21, 2010

Advice for a new grad from Antonin Scalia: Wisdom!

"On Thursday, Justice Antonin Scalia gave the commencement address at Langley High School, in Virginia, where his granddaughter was graduating. An excerpt:

“[A] platitude I want discuss comes in many flavors. It can be variously delivered as, ‘Follow your star,’ or ‘Never compromise your principles.’ Or, quoting Polonius in ‘Hamlet’ — who people forget was supposed to be an idiot — ‘To thine ownself be true.’ Now this can be very good or very bad advice. Indeed, follow your star if you want to head north and it’s the North Star. But if you want to head north and it’s Mars, you had better follow somebody else’s star.

“Indeed, never compromise your principles. Unless, of course, your principles are Adolf Hitler’s. In which case, you would be well advised to compromise your principles, as much as you can.

“And indeed, to thine ownself be true, depending upon who you think you are. It’s a belief that seems particularly to beset modern society, that believing deeply in something, and following that belief, is the most important thing a person could do. Get out there and picket, or boycott, or electioneer, or whatever. I am here to tell you that it is much less important how committed you are, than what you are committed to. If I had to choose, I would always take the less dynamic, indeed even the lazy person who knows what’s right, than the zealot in the cause of error. He may move slower, but he’s headed in the right direction.

“Movement is not necessarily progress. More important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly. Nobody — remember this — neither Hitler, nor Lenin, nor any despot you could name, ever came forward with a proposal that read, ‘Now, let’s create a really oppressive and evil society.’ Hitler said, ‘Let’s take the means necessary to restore our national pride and civic order.’ And Lenin said, ‘Let’s take the means necessary to assure a fair distribution of the goods of the world.’

In short, it is your responsibility, men and women of the class of 2010, not just to be zealous in the pursuit of your ideals, but to be sure that your ideals are the right ones. That is perhaps the hardest part of being a good human being: Good intentions are not enough. Being a good person begins with being a wise person. Then, when you follow your conscience, will you be headed in the right direction.”"

H/T: Dennis Prager


Energy Misinformation and Mythology from BHO

"Energy Pipedreams" by Robert Samuelson explains the misleading information given to us by our President in last weeks address on the BP oil spill.

A quick read to understand the intracacies of the fossil fuel availability problem.

Labels: ,

Shelby Steele explains the scapegoating of Israel

"Israel and the Surrender of the West" by Shelby Steele is a clear explanation of why Israel is scapegoated. A very interesting WSJ column all should read. A sample and the finest summary of current Western Civilization I have read:

"One reason for this [ the scapegoating of Israel] is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now. Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past—racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on."

Let's see:

military might - imperialistic
enforce our borders - racist
assimilation - xenophobic
western civilization primacy - supremacist

seems to me the left half of these pairs built the wealthiest - at all levels - and arguably fairest nation on the earth; and the right half have been fought by Western Civiliztion with at least partial success.

The thinking is upside down!


Friday, June 18, 2010

Peggy Noonan's Insight

Peggy Noonan in "The Snakebit President" shares her insight into BHO and his Presidency at this juncture. Remember she was enamored with and a supporter of BHO during his campaign (which I could never really understand!).

On why President Obama seems to be floundering:

"There is still a sense about Mr. Obama that he needs George W. Bush in order to give his presidency full shape and meaning. In this he is like Jimmy Carter, who needed Richard Nixon, or rather the Watergate scandal, which made him president. Mr. Carter needed Richard Nixon standing in the corner looking like he'd spent the night sleeping in his suit as it hangs in the closet. The image is from Joe McGinnis's "The Selling of the President, 1968." Mr. Carter needed to be able to point at Nixon and say, "I'm not him. He dirty, me clean. You hate him, like me." Carter's presidency was given coherence and meaning by Nixon, Watergate, and without it that presidency seemed formless. Mr. Obama, in the same way, needs Mr. Bush standing in the corner like Boo Radley, saying "Let's invade something!" But Mr. Bush is wisely back home in Texas finishing a book, and the president never sounds weaker than when he suggests his predicament is all his predecessor's fault.

Mr. Obama needs Mr. Bush in the corner and doesn't have him. That's part of why he looks so alone out there. "

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Wisdom from Steve Wynn

Listen to this 4 minute interview with Steve Wynn, a very successful businessman who explains the problem with this administration and our economy.

Listen to it! It is an important analysis.

Labels: ,

Monday, June 07, 2010


Doesn't this make you proud of BHO?

Labels: ,

UK Budget Cuts

The UK is going through a process we will undoubtedly have to go through in the not too distant future due to current fiscal policies.

The question is how can the current administration read articles like this and watch the turmoil happening while the UK has to reverse identical policies to this administrations, while they blindly continue on the same path as the UK over thel last 2 or 3 decades?

It amazes me!

Labels: , ,

A Warning from Arthur Laffer

Arthur Laffer warns of an economic collapse in 2011 due to the scheduled tax hikes. His logic seems correct and he backs it up with historical data from 1981 forward.

Do you believe him?

Labels: ,

Saturday, June 05, 2010

Chris Christie: clearly explains the problem today with Public Education

Listen to this 5 minute video with Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie explaining his picking a fight with the teachers unions in order to save public education.

It is a fight we all must have soon because, as he says, if we lose this fight, there are no other fights! Our kids will be gone!

Some have mentioned Chris Chistie for President in 2012. Not a bad idea if he disposes of Political Correctness on other issue as he has this one.


Friday, June 04, 2010

David Souter shows his lack of understanding of Originalism!

Damon W. Root at reason.com analyzes David Souter's commencement speech at Harvard last week and points out that this ultra-liberal Supreme Court Justice doesn't understand what Originalism is! Sad!

Originalism does not just take into account the "original" body of the Constitution, but also the Amendments - at the time of their inclusion. Therefore, Plessy v. Ferguson was a terrible decision by the Supreme Court because the Justices who supported it were not "Originalists" as Justice Souter implies.

Our country fixed the problem addressed by Plessey v. Ferguson in 1868 with the 14th Amendment. But the Supreme Court - undoubtedly "activists" of that day - did not take the "original" intent of the 14th Amendment into account. They - not Originalism - were the problem.

Amazing that Souter cannot see this!