Treating Them Like Children

More proof that the democrats see much of their constituency as children.

High-ranking House Democrats are urging the Treasury Department to prop up minority-owned broadcasters suffering from a lack of capital and lost advertising revenue amid the economic slump.

To the liberal-left elite, minorities, women and any other group except white males are to be treated by children who cannot make their own way and require government help. If broadcasters are failing, they're failing. Why should the taxpayers provide money to a PRIVATE BUSINESS that isn't generating enough revenue to continue operations. I don't care who owns the business, there is simply no Constitutional authority for the government to keep any business from failing.

Oh.. I amend my statement above. White, male bankers and automotive executives are also children.

SCOTUS SCROTUM Is At It Again

The Supreme Court of The United States which I refer to as SCROTUM: "Stupid Court Repeatedly Orders Treacherous Unconstitutional Mandates" will begin deliberations this week on what is considered indecent broadcasting. Apparently, there are a lot of people out there who go running to the FCC every time someone says a cuss word on live television.

If the viewers would contact the networks and voice their displeasure I could accept that. If they contacted the advertisers, I could accept that. But the default position for far too many people is to seek a government solution to the problem.

Why do we need an FCC? We don't! Existing property laws could govern signal stealing, etc. We don't need the government to regulate the content. Viewers and potential viewers are capable of doing that on their own.

But, but, but, DIFSTER! If there is no regulation, the airwaves will be filled with nothing but pornography! I disagree. Sure, there will be some. However, not as much as you would imagine. There has to be a market for it. Yes, I'm quite a aware there is a market for porn. However, many companies would not be willing to spend their advertising dollars on those shows. Parents will block the naughty channels so their children cannot watch them. Parents will complain bitterly to the broadcasters. Other broadcasters will market themselves as "smut free" and brag about higher standards, etc.

The free flow of information is far more important than using government to protect the eyes and ears of our young ones. That job is up to the parents. Instill the values you want your children to have. For the most part, they WILL listen. We do need to control the media content that enters our homes, but it's up to us to do it.

The additional problem I'm having here is that once again SCROTUM is trying to make laws for us rather than simply interpreting it. Let Congress define decency if they think they can but stop treating us like children who can't protect ourselves and our families.

H&R Block Misandry

The H&R Block commercial I've seen a few times now is really irritating. The woman is standing over the man who's stuck doing the taxes and she's berating him for using a boxed software instead of "People" to do their taxes. He sits there looking like an idiot the whole time while she makes fun of him for not doing it the right way.

If it was an isolated incident, that would be one thing, but the constant man-bashing on TV is no longer funny. I'm going to send them an email letting them know I don't appreciate it.

An Unlikely Scenario

Barak Osama Obama is in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton in a recent Iowa poll.

For the sake of clarity, I don't believe the poll numbers for Obama right now anymore than I do the number for Ron Paul polling at very low numbers. I believe the media is overstating the Obama threat for the sake of excitement and so it doesn't look like Hillary has already been crowned the nominee.

That being said, I want to explore the idea of a contest between Barak Obama and Ron Paul if both should win their respective nominations.

This would be a landslide election for Ron Paul for a number of reasons:

1. America is barely ready for a female President, a black President is highly unlikely at this point. You'd have a lot of Southern Democrats in particular voting for Ron Paul. A lot of white moderates would also turn on the DNC in favor Ron Paul. The Hispanic vote for a black President would be nearly non-existent insofar as the Hispanic voting block is fairly weak anyway.
2. There are trust issues. Barak Obama is an unknown quantity. He has no record to back him up, no notable achievements, no great political legacy. Ron Paul on the other hand has a consistent track record of espousing the same views for 30 years.
3. Low voter turnout would be another issue. Let's face it, the Democrat base isn't going to get really excited about Obama and the typical die hard Republican who thought Giuliani was just fine isn't going to get real excited about a contest with a loser Democrat. Ron Paul supporters will be the heaviest turnout there is. They'll be knocking on doors and working the phones, etc.

A Ron Paul/Barak Obama contest is unlikely. Hillary has already been crowned by her party and Obama is just along for the ride. Don't forget to Register Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the Primary.

Ron Paul In The Polls

It appears that Ron Paul is gaining some significant momentum in the early primary states.

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is gaining momentum in New Hampshire and Iowa, according to a poll released Tuesday by CBS News and the New York Times. The Texas congressman has garnered an estimated 8 percent in New Hampshire, surpassing former GOP front-runner Fred Thompson, and is now tied with John McCain in Iowa.

Polls released over the weekend by the Boston Globe in association with the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, both confirmed Congressman Paul’s support to be higher than Thompson’s as well.

“The polls confirm what we already know: Congressman Paul is catching on in the early primary states,” said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we’re rapidly gaining support nationwide.”

The CBS-New York Times poll was conducted November 2-12. On November 5, the Ron Paul campaign brought in a record-breaking $4.2 million online, and an additional $1 million to end the week.

And these were probably, as most of them are, phone polls to land lines which don't include the growing segment of people like me who only have a cell phone. The undercurrent of support out there not being reached by the pollsters is much bigger than anyone in the media want to let on. A good showing in any of the early primary states will propel him on the the national stage in a media sense. What happens from there is anyone's guess but if the media is forced to acknowledge him, things can only get better.

Hillary Helped Ron Paul

This is 2nd hand information but I was told that Rusty Humphries said on his show today that Ron Paul's record setting fund raising day had help from Hillary Clinton's campaign. The person who told me agreed that it's probably true because he thinks that if Ron Paul can raise enough money and then doesn't get the Republican nomination that he'll run as 3rd party candidate.

If I've erred in my misrepresentation of what Humphries said, I'm open to correction but I want to quash this notion before it catches any traction. This has to be an absolutely false notion for several reasons:

• Ron Paul raised $4.2 million by 37,000 donors. That's an average of $113.51 per donor. I'm sure that some donated more and some donated less. It would take a "vast conspiracy" to get Hillary supporters to donate that much to the Ron Paul campaign. Word would get out. The person who told me about this said, "Well, maybe a lot of people only gave a little but someone with a lot of money like George Soros came in with a big check for the rest." BZZZZZ try again. There are contribution limits and in order for someone to write a big check, it would have had to be to the Republican party not directly to the campaign. Those funds surely wouldn't go to Ron Paul.
• Hillary is too arrogant to think she can lose. She would never resort to helping the one man that she knows could defeat her if he got the nomination. Of course the Republicans that blindly follow the non-conservative candidates think Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance but there's no convincing them. If he gets the nomination, they'll have a lot of back-peddling to do.
• I can't speak for the good doctor, but I don't think that he'd turn around and run as an independent. He'd never make it on the ballot in time in most states. He's more realistic than that and wouldn't run just to be vindictive.
  

Ron Paul Wins Fox News Poll

...but Sean Hannity dismisses the results.

Watch Hannity interview Ron Paul after the New Hampshire debate. Not only does Hannity completely dismiss the results of Fox's own poll, he tries to corner Paul in to saying who he's support if he doesn't win the nomination. He also implied that if he wasn't going to support any of the front runner Republicans he'd be supporting Hillary.

Shameless.