About Me

Name: JDHoldem
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

I've had enough . . . how about you?

Posted by JDHoldem on Saturday, July 04, 2009 9:47:31 PM
With the recent resignation of Sarah Palin -- in part because of an onslaught of merciliess, vicious, loathsome attacks on her-- Republicans have -- for the time being -- lost one of its most prominent national figures. These attacks were aided by co-conspirators in the MSM and maggots that hide behind computer screens and spew vicious lies and distortions, their only aim, destroying someone who they view as the target. They destroy the good because it is the good.
 
More frustrating is the lack of return fire. I'm talking about meaningful return fire, the kind of fire that will make peope who trade in destruction worry about their own destruction.
 
Here is what I'm proposing: The RNC should create a fund -- which we all can voluntarily give to -- for the specific purpose of counter strike. Once that fund is flush, the head of the RNC should have a nice quiet chat with the head of the DNC, explaining to him that if these kinds of attacks continue, here is what the RNC is prepared to respond. On a personal level.
 
Funds will be used to hire private investigators and will get vital info on the attackers. If you run a blog, we'll get pictures of you -- and your family. If you dabble in drugs, we'll let the world know. If you screw around on your wife, everyone will know. Your picture will be all over the internet -- photoshopped, of cource. Your boss will be made aware of what you do. People will show up at your door, protesting. Your phone number will be made available for people to call you at all hours of the day and night, so they can personally tell you what a loathsome piece of rot you are.
 
In other words, attach a personal cost to their viciousness. I'm not suggesting anything illegal. But I am suggesting it is time for the gloves to come off, to hold these maggots personally responsible.
 
What say you?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

By What Authority . . .

Posted by JDHoldem on Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:39:29 PM
You've heard of him, a Pay Czar, a person not confirmed by any elected body --  answerable only to the President -- will potentially be determining your pay scale. This begs the question, by what authority does the government assume this power?  By authority  does some government official have to tell you how much you can make, how big your bonus can be, or -- coming down the pike -- what doctor you can go to and what procedure they'll allow? Obviously it doesn't come from the Constitution. No, this power that is being assumed comes from only one source -- the ultimate threat of force against you and anyone who resists.
 
It's clear, we are rapidly approaching the edge of the cliff, much faster than many thought. Many thought our hopes rested in a populace that would see the carnage and vote for sanity in 2010. But it is becoming clear that may be too late. So what can be done? First, a challenge to these thuggish, Chicago style politics needs to be made in the courts. Quickly. If no satisfaction is found there, it is time to show the strength of rational individuals who share a love for freedom and liberty by going to Washington DC together, to the streets. By confronting these SOB's. By letting them see masses who vocally and physically condemn these policies.
 
In short, it's time to take back America!
Tags: take back  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Diversity = Non-White Male

Posted by JDHoldem on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:12:45 PM
The dreaded "D" word. Diversity! Our culture  bows to it like some glittering idol on the alter of righteousness. But what does it mean? Chuck Schumer on Fox this morning commenting on Obama's Supreme pick, listed qualifications a pick must meet and at the end tossed in the D. The pick must meet the mandate of Diversity. Put another way: Non-White Males need not apply. That's what it means.
 
And so our President, implicitly wrapped in the protecitve armor that comes when nominating a Non-White Male, puts forth a nominee that has some esplainin' to do. I'm sure by now most have heard this quote from the New York Times attributed to Sotomayor referencing white men: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
 
Can you imaging if Chief Justice Roberts had made a comment similar to that before being confirmed. Imagine him saying something to the effect that with the broad range of experience that comes from being white in our society, it is clear a white male is in a much better position to make better decisions that focus on white culture -- far better than a Latina."
 
Just imagine the outrage.
 
But the door of bigotry apparently swings only one way.  But what about this pariah, this White Male? Isn't this the same fellow that has given us -- oh, I don't know -- the electric light, the internal combustion engine, the air plaine, the integrated circuit, our constitution, etc, etc, etc.  That's a short list of what the dispised and reviled White Male has given society. And now for what Diversity has given us?
 
If you can think of something, let us all know.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

White House says closing Gitmo a hasty decision

Posted by JDHoldem on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:24:43 PM
Duh!! Ya think????
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

While America Slept

Posted by JDHoldem on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:52:59 PM
  Scrapping missile defense? Apparently this is under consideration by the new administration, making those with any sense of the dangers growing daily in this world shake their heads in disgust.

In case you were out of the loop, today Iran successfully tested a long-range missile, in another step to develop a nuclear delivery system. This should clearly underscore the dangers the world faces, even to the most naïve among us. And no boilerplate statements of condemnation from the U.S. State Department are going to dissuade the Iranian – or the North Koreans for that matter.

Couple this with Iranian military leaders comments the other day about their ability to destroy Israel in eleven days, and Iran's intensions are clearer than ever. Now they may be hard to take. They may not be what we'd like. But they are what they are. And no amount of negotiating and smiling and cajoling and diplomatic efforts is going to change the sick psyche of that nation's leadership.

Within this context, it is inconceivable to me that any sane person would consider scrapping a defensive system that could defend against those nuclear-tipped missiles. But apparently that is exactly what is going on.

It seems we are so caught up in the style and coolness of our new President, we haven't noticed his grave deficiencies. Millions still celebrate the victory, blithely ignoring the wolf at the door.

Perhaps it will take the loss of a major city – probably Tel Aviv – to shake us out of our self-induced slumber.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We may be doomed!

Posted by JDHoldem on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:26:39 PM
Some think it's a great idea to rename the Democratic party the "Nationalist Socialist Democrat" party.  Sorry to say,  they are just flat wrong -- it won't work.. Why? Because the word "socialist" has no negative meaning for millions and millions of people in this country. Instread, young adults have been educated for years by left leaning teachers touting the wonders of a utopian socialist society. If you brand the dems as socialists, they'll flock to it.
 
Sad to say, calling the dems socialist, or pointing out the ultimate treachery of Obama's thug-like power grabs won't win the day. In fact, there is very little that can be done, I'm afraid. Between a monolithic black vote, a strong union vote, and the increased Hspanic vote, and the glazed-eyed adoration of a lost generation where style trumps substance -- all in Obama's camp, I don't see how we can win.
 
When the insane outnumber the sane, the sane loose. This is why we were originally set up to be a republic. It turns out democracy is only a notch above mob rule.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Brilliant?

Posted by JDHoldem on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:49:28 PM

 

I'm so repulsed by the fawning and obvious pandering that attempt to characterize President Obama as "brilliant." Oh, you know what I'm talking about. You see it when someone is asked about him in public. Their eyes will shift and they'll start off their response with something such as, "Well, first of all, let me say that he's brilliant . . ." and it will go on from there.

And I'm not just talking about the silly unintelligensia that make up the MSM, either. I'm talking about moderate to conservative commentators as well. I just cringe, because it's so obvious they know he's not brilliant. They know he's about as intelligent as a junior associate at a moderate sized law firm. Nothing more.

And that's an honest assessment.

So why is it said? We know the answer to that. It's all meant to ward off the dreaded R word.

That's right, the word "racist."

But, just between the two of us, let's look at the facts. Here is a guy who went to Occidental and who's grades reflect an average student – at best. Then, somehow, he transferred to Harvard. How? It's not very clear. God knows he certainly not a shining star in the academic cosmos of Occidental. But, sad to say, there's evidence that he was admitted more based on his skin color than on his academic acumen, a kind of Ivy League Affirmative Action.

Follow that up by looking at his much-touted ccomplishments on the Harvard Review, and we find out they were not based on academic achievement, but on "other considerations."

SAT scores, GPA's, LSAT's? His "brilliance" won't release them.

Why not? I think we all know the reason.

Bottom line: The next time someone tries to characterize the anointed one as brilliant, what he's done that's brilliant and watch the sweat on the brow start to form.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Far Left -- You just have to laugh!

Posted by JDHoldem on Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:53:07 PM

 Okay, so our President at the last minute decides that photos detailing enhanced interrogation techniques should not be released. His change was so sudden he practically caught MSNBC's David "Let's p*mp Chel out" Shuster in mid sentence supporting the release. Opps! Talk about being hung out to dry! The pres then decides to restart tribunals for some terrorists creating this vast black hole of silence from the left. Add to this his "surge" in Afghanastan, and you've got an interesting buffet of items anathama to the vast majority of leftists.

But what do we hear from CNN and MSNBC? Mostly crickets. Or, as for example on Lou Dobb's the other day, you hear a panel waxing about how Barry is "growing into the Presidency." In other words, a complete abandonment of principle in favor of a persoanlity.
Where was the outrage at these significant changes of position. Where was the condemnation of such betrayal?  In point of fact, you heard almost nothing.
 
Which leads to a question: What exactly does the left stand for -- in principle, I mean? What are their seminal beliefs?
While Conservatives can point to the belief in individual  rights steming from Natural Law; the belief that individuals have the right to persue happiness (no gurantee);  that the role of government should be limited and powers not deliniated in the Constitution are handled by the states, to name a few. What principles do the left actually have?
 
LOL -- the answer, I'm afraid is . . . none.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LA Times and Candidate Sex Scandal

Posted by JDHoldem on Friday, November 02, 2007 10:53:36 PM
It seems that the Los Angeles Times is "supposedly" sitting on a steamy sex scandal involving a major Presidential candidate. According to the rumor, this is a well-known open secret among the Washington Press Corp. Apparently The Times is cogitating over the ethical issues involved with the story and the impact it would have on the election -- even though they apparently had no such reluctance concerning Arnold and sex stories about him -- releasing stories only days before the gubanatorial election.
  So who is this candidate? It seems most are putting their money on the story being about Hillary Clinton and her always-at-her-side sensuous Muslim "assistant" who seems to be at her D.C. appartment early in the morning and late in the evening. Yes, the story would "out" Hillary as a Lesbian.

So why is this an issue? It may matter to some that the Clinton's have been leading a cardboard cutout simulation of a marriage but many have suspected that for years.  The danger -- at least to the country -- would be on how far Hillary and Co. would go to cover up the truth. Imagine her as President and a foreign country quietly letting her know that they had indisputable proof that she was in fact a lesbian, information they were prepared to go public with, unless, of couse she did ... A. B. C. You get the idea. I am reminded of the KGB and their tactics on luring U.S. government officials to spy for the Soviets. They had an acronym: MICE. M- for money; I- for ideology, C - for coersion and E- for ego. Could a foreign intelligence service blackmail Hillary Clinton concerning her Lesbian tendencies? Did China blackmail Bill Clinton?

What do you thing?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will the 2008 Presidential Election be a Blowout? For the GOP??

Posted by JDHoldem on Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:57:58 PM
Today a California Field Poll came out giving some encouragement that California will not be easy for Hillary Clinton and the Dems in the Presidential election. California has been considered practically a lock for the Blue State Lovers, but things are becoming fluid. Remember, this is the state of the Governator, who has become very popular again in his own right.

So let's do a little surmising, shall we? Let's say that the GOP nominee is Rudy. I know, I know, it's a bit premature. But just for the heck of it, let's put Rudy at the top of the ticket. That puts NY in play. It gives the GOP a real good shot at Florida. Rudy should run a lot better than a leftist candidate such as Clinton in the deep South. Put Texas in the GOP column.

And now, perhaps, California?? Wow!!  And then there are the not-so-widely discussed issues, the ones whipsered between office cubicles or in hushed tones over a lunch counter.  The "Woman" factor. I know, we've been hearing how woman are going to flock to the polls to cast their votes for Hillary. That's the Dem party line, but it's not anchored to reality. Here is what is more likely to happen. GOP woman vote enmass against Hillary. These are thinking woman, woman who are strong, and in no way beholden to a quasi-socialist form of government. They are smart and they see exactly the kind of creature they are dealing with in Hillary. In fact, I think woman can size her up much better than men. Follow this up with the man who says he has no problem voting for a woman, then goes in and pulls the lever for Rudy because he has a gender bias. Or the independent who is inclinded to vote Dem, but sits this one out because he/she can't bring themselves to vote for someone with an R in front of their name, but will have nothing to do with the one of the most power-hungry, corrupt politicians of the last one-hundred years.

And, of course, if the Dem primaries get really rough and tumble, Clinton could have more battle scars than a glass cutter's hands with no gloves.  

Chin up. Things are going our way!!

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why is Keith Olberman Soooo Gutless??

Posted by JDHoldem on Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:39:06 PM
Does anyone actually watch this guy? Based on his ratings, probably not many. In the name of fairness, I've forced myself to watch snippets of his show now and then. Frankly, he's such a self-absorbed pompous talking head, the average person can take about as much of him as they can Cyan Pepper -- in extremely small doses.

Here is my problem with his "show" -- He is in constant froth mode against the president. I just don't mean he's in disagreement with the adminsitration. No, he works himself up into some kind of psychsis . When he hits on a topic, he goes into a rant. Then he brings on a guest. Now one might think he's bringing on a guest to represent a counter-opinion. Noooo. Mr. Spittle-Spray essentially brings on the guest to continue the bashing. Last night he goes into a bash-rant, eyes wide with mania, then brings on a guest -- from the Huffington Post. Yeah. So much for fair and balanced!

I'm frankly embarrased for the guy. He actually believes he has something to say, yet probably can't figure out why reruns of the Weather Channel are getting better ratings. Keith, here is a hint -- try interviewing someone who isn't going to suck up to you. Show some balls! Maybe grow the mustache back.

Look at your competetors and see why they are stomping all over you. O'Reilly -- notice he goes mano a mano! Hannity and Colmes. You notice anything, Bushy Brows?

Over and over and over you see this kind of intellectual cowadice from the guy.  If he doesn't have the guts to contend with someone who disagrees with him, he really needs to go back to calling Little League Baseball games in Redondo Beach, CA.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It takes a woman

Posted by JDHoldem on Sunday, October 07, 2007 2:45:51 PM
I recently heard Ann Coulter interviewed about her new book and she knocked me over with a comment. Annie said that if it weren't for woman there would not have been (and I'm doing this from memory now, so cut me a break) a Democrat president in the last 40 years. I turns out that men are heavily biased toward Republicans and married women split their vote 50/50. BUT single moms, those woman so hard up they never were able to attract a man and divorced women go heavily the other way ... so to speak. The reason according to Ann was this: Single moms, etc are looking for a safety net. They have no second income; many have meager incomes. In other words -- They got nobody ... except the all loving, feel-good don't-you-worry-about-a thing big tent dem party. Feed your kids -- kids you probably knew you couldn't afford to begin with -- no problem, we'll just bill others for it. Health care ... don't you worry, we'll pull the money out of other hard working tax payers checks. How about popping out another kid and we'll start him off with 5 grand.

The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced Ann is absolutely right. Funny though that it took a single woman to make me see it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

That Critical Time

Posted by JDHoldem on Saturday, October 06, 2007 2:40:30 PM
It is a critical time for conservatives. It's the Winter of Discontent. Polls now show that Clinton is running not only ahead of Obama and company but ahead of every Rep. candidate. Clintion is now being portrayed as unbeatable, Bill is gearing up for a major role in her presidency. I promise you this -- if she is elected with a democrat congress, you will not recognize America in four years. And it will be our own fault.

But is she unbeatable? Hardly. But it is going to take work and some common sense.

Here is what is working against her -- She is a woman. Yup, no matter what people say, the dirty little secret is there is still a percentage of people who simply will not entrust the U.S. to a woman. Believe me, it won't show up in polling. High negatives -- she's got them and many have made up there minds about her and most don't like her. She's also a socialist -- the consequences of this need to be made clear to the general public.

The fact is, if the signal to noice ratio was not so high, a clear, well-articulated, point-by-point discussion of differences between liberals and conservatives is a winner every time. But, unfortunately, most of the noise is coming about because of Iraq. So how do we handle Iraq? Someone has to articulate a clear exit strategy, one that is acceptable to America. Bush can help by announcing more troup reductions. If the war can be portrayed as winding down and light is visible at the end of the tunnel, Iraq may be overshadowed by other issues such as immigration and job creation. These topics are winnable for conservatives. Talk about tax cuts, and let people know they are keeping more of their money and will continue to do so under a Rep. president. Promise to not only enforce boarders but continue strong raids against employers who hire illigals. These are all winning issues, ones the dems always try to walk the line on.


So, here is what needs to be done with some pressing problems in the party. First the Religious Right -- ala Dobson -- needs to be taken aside and have some sense talked into him. He needs to be told in no uncertain that his threat of a third party candidate will only guarantee the socialization of America, the appointment of socialist judges, the limination of conservative talk radio and a further eroding of the role of religion in America. If he fails to come around he needs to be castigated and an appeal to the sanity of those who follow him needs to be made directly.

Second -- quit talking about your fear of a Hillary presidency. Let's ge the public to think about how good things can be under a republican presidency. All of this discussion of a Clinton presidency in public only seems to make it seem more natural, more inevitable.

Third -- All of us need to get behind the Rep. candidate. There is not one, with the exception of Ron Paul, that I could not support. Rudy, Mitt, Fred, Huck -- all good men.

Fourth -- We need to start giving money again.

Fifth -- We need to be on the offensive. NY is considered safe for Clinton. Attack NY. The party needs to go take that state out of the blue column.

Go take a look at the electoral map. If we can keep the south (pretty safe) take Florida, Ohio, and pick up Ill and or NY, we'd be in good shape. But ti won't happen by wringing. It's time to suck it up folks. It is winnable.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »