I have a pessimistic feeling about the upcoming election. I worry the Republicans will put up a Kerry. One thing is for sure, there will be nothing rational or honest about either side’s campaign. It’s going to be a mud-slinging brawl. Few people in Washington have character, and the ones that do are crazy. Example: Rand Paul, honest, has solid character, tried to amend the Patriot Act by following Congressional rules, without slinging dirt. Harry Reid, zero character, miss-characterizes Rand’s efforts as - trying to arm terrorists – regardless of the fact that if it were a Republican administration renewing the Patriot act, he’d be making the same types of ingenuous arguments against it. 

Did anyone catch Obama’s Libya speech? I just watched it. He spent the first third tidying up on political points. Then he made his single valid point – that allowing Gadhafi to regain control of the country with outright military force against the citizens would have prescribed to all the other dictators losing power what to do.

Then he made a bogus comparison between this non-war-war-making and the invasion of Iraq, in an attempt to show that this is different from Iraq, specifically because the goal of the Iraq invasion was (naughty word) regiem change. Bill O’Reilly agreed with him on that point. I think they’re both full of shit…

The problem with the Iraq invasion wasn’t the goal of regime change, or the actual change. It was that the goal was reach far easier than we expected and were ready for. The damn country collapsed in on itself and insurgents pored in from every America-hatting hole in the world. From there fear and complacency came over the Iraqi people, waiting for the US to fix it.

Libya is a totally different situation. The Libyan people are a different kind of people. They formed an army out of their neighborhoods – and without social networking. FFS, the rebels have already set up a new national bank and are trying to sell oil from fields they recently captured. WTF?!?!? How smooth would Iraq have gone if a couple a couple dozen of these guys lived there??? They sure can’t fight for shit, and shoot way too much ammo into the air – but they’re industrious.

Like I said, we should have let the Enterprise savage Gadhafi’s aircraft that first day when he unleashed them on the rebels. Without Gadhafi’s fire power, the rebel’s momentum would have continued, and anyone sane would have dropped loyalty to Moe Crazy.

Of course that was never a possibility. We can’t have anything that politically looks like our unilateral Iraq expedition. But if the goal of all this business doesn’t include regime change, I don’t know what the hell is going on, and I doubt the sanity and/or honesty of everyone involved. What scenario worth our military intervention could possibly include Gadhafi still ruling Libya???

Oh shit, I’ve got to change a fuse in the bull-shit detector again…

The trouble is competing ideology. Either side has a totally different approach to constructing the solution for certain problems.

But yes, indeed, we are talking about negotiation when we talk about compromise. Obama seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation means. Think of the whole opening dialogue with Iran campaign point. He doesn’t seem to grasp that negotiation is an adjustment of wills according to leverage. And the goal is to have both sides leave happy. He seems to think negotiation is charming someone into doing something that they otherwise wouldn’t have, without you enlightening charm.

The two sides should come together and discuss each others priorities – and make trade, like two kids trading lunch items. The more leverage you have, the more you can demand. That’s negotiation. That’s how business deals work.

Taking Obama’s legislation as an example. He made one of the biggest mistakes you can make in a negotiation, and gave the Reps one of the biggest forms of leverage: Ability to withdraw. At first he though he had ALL the leverage, so they went after the Pelosi Special. But this scared off many conservative Dems, let everyone know the Obama administration was being belligerent, didn’t include any Republican priorities, giving the Republicans that one big stick: Ability to withdraw and form a bipartisan opposition.

There was nothing keeping the Reps in the negotiation – actually – they were kicked right the fuck out. Remember? The closed door?

Ending the filibuster will just shift more leverage to the majority side. It won’t increase compromise in any way. It will only make one side able to demand more – or kick the other side out all together. This would be in the Democrat’s overall interest, because they’re “Progressives” and have a long list of big changes.

That was the fundamental failure of this presidency. He can try blaming others, but what really happened was he thought he could dictate change and ruined his position, in all of two months. Good work Pelosi. Obama could have pulled the other side in and ONLY passed solutions both sides agreed upon, and strengthened his position – validated his Obama mystique.

Think about that. Think about if he had immediately passed a short and easily implementable healthcare reform bill that first fall. A bill both sides had a stake in and showed some pleasant results that year. He would have earned credibility, and significantly increased his leverage for Phase 2. And Phase 3 might happen in year 6 of the Obama administration and look like a public option.

And yes, there would have been butt-hurt Reps over there holding out on anything. But he could have grabbed half or a third with an honest healthcare reform bill. They wouldn’t have had a choice. They wouldn’t have had the Ability to Withdraw.

Instead he now has the record of passing, or attempting to pass, three bills, all with purely partisan support, and all with bipartisan opposition:

1. Spent $800 billion that didn’t seem to do one good-damn thing.
2. Half passed a cap’n trade bill that scared – and is scaring – the shit out of business during a recession.
3. Passed a healthcare bill against the will of the people and through the use of parliamentary tricks.

Bad economy or not, the reason Obama’s support has dwindled is this: He didn’t do enough for the Left, and the moderates feel like they got scammed.

It starts back a few days ago when Bill O’Reilly was on The View, a show where women talk inanely about issues. [no, I'm not saying every woman in the world is on this show] The group was thoughtfully discussing why Obama is having so much trouble with the American people.

O’Reilly was making the point that there exists between Obama and the average Americal a huge proverbial chasm separating how they see the world. His example of this disconnect was the mosque controversy in NY. Obama approached the issue as though it were one of freedom of religion – while 70% of Americans see plainly that building a mosque so close to the 9-11 sight is inappropriate because [and here it comes] Muslims killed us on 9-11. This statement caused Whoopy Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set (then walk right back on).

I’ve said before I don’t have a problem with “The Ground Zero Mosque”. And personally, I don’t like how Bill described his idea. I don’t think it actually offended any Muslims, but saying that sort of thing gives bitchy Liberals more little sticks to swing and unfairly further the crazy-O’Reilly-narrative with their Teabagger generalizing double-standard. He could have used better words, and the words he used distracted all the stupid people – the ones who need to listen – from the very true point he was making.

The fact is: Muslims did kill us on 9-11. There was a network of guys who pulled off an attack on our country and killed over 3000 people, and those killers did this based on ideas and motivations found in their sect of Islam. Also, one of the biggest threats to peace in the world right now is radical Islam. People know this. This is what people think. Bill said it too simply. He assumes American’s have good sense and don’t need crayons. He’s right. What other society would have had zero backlash against Muslims after 9-11?

The average American starkly sees why constructing a Mosque so close to the site of mass-murder by Muslims is offensive. These Americans aren’t interested in limiting the freedom of anyone’s religion, or keeping Liberal support for a political agenda. They just see this as common sense, best to avoid, find another spot, respect the victims’ suffering. The President has a different way of looking at the issue – apparently. That’s the point Bill was making before he stepped in it.

So since then Bill has been hashing over this whole big to-do, complaining about political correctness running a muck, how it’s wearing on the American people’s constitution for politeness. He is right. It is difficult to have this much needed conversation because everyone is expected to pretend that they don’t have any less-than-enlightened inclinations about Muslims – it’s just those other guys we have to reeducate.

So a couple days ago Bill is having a Factor debate, which includes a contributor representing either side. Juan Williams is representing the that-was-a-stupid-thing-to-say-Bill side, and someone else was representing the Muslim-problem side. Besides working as a contributor on Fox News, Juan did the same thing for NPR, until 36 hours after this debate. Here it is:http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4381309/factor-debate-over-danger-from-muslim-world/?playlist_id=86923

Now, Juan is a really likable guy. He’s friendly and honest. He’s one of those guys who you can never count on which side of the issue he’ll fall – but you can count on whatever he says, it will be sincere and thought provoking. He’s not toeing anyone’s line, in other words, and makes great points and always adds to the conversation. He’s my favorite kind of contributor. He makes me think and question my ideas.

Right off Juan concedes that Bill is right about one thing: Political correctness is run-a-muck. He also added that this is a bad thing because an over-adherence to political correctness makes needed conversation impossible because it forces people to ignore reality. He then went on to describe an example of the problem, that he himself feels uneasy when he sees people dressed in Muslim garb boarding his plane. He wasn’t advocating such feelings, he was making a factual statement, highlighting a problem he himself is part of, and went on to argue against Bill’s use of words, because they could further this problem.

So 36 hours later, after receiving pressure from CAIR (a Muslim civil rights group), NPR abruptly cans Juan over the phone, an employee of 10 years. The fool president of NPR, Vivian Schiller, claimed the reason for the firing was that Juan, as an NPR contributor/corespondent, isn’t supposed express opinion.

And this is where the fun begins. I swear, it’s like NPR forgot my birthday, just remembered, and felt guilty and got me something REALLY good.

1. Juan wasn’t expressing opinion. He was stating a fact, a helpful fact in countering Bill’s MuslimsKilledUs argument, and a necessary fact in the Muslim-American discussion.

2. There are numerous other correspondents and contributors for NPR on record making all kinds of offensive opinions at all kinds of venues. None have been fired.

3. Juan was holding up the pro-Muslim side of the Factor debate. So it’s obvious that those ninnies on NPR and the jerks at CAIR ignored the context of the statement, or didn’t even bother to read the whole transcript, and imprudently fired a very respected journalist in order to further petty political ends. They’ve been looking for a reason to cut this Fox guy out. Juan Williams, a black man on FOX, a FOX/NPR contributor, harms the Faux News narrative they try to spin.

Vivian Schiller then goes on TV and says that Juan’s opinions should be shared with his psychiatrist and publicist, not as an NPR contributor. Juan was also the ONLY black person on NPR – lol.

Now EVERYONE is pissed – across the spectrum. ALL the ladies on the View think NPR made a mistake, those morning idiots on MSNBC say NPR should hire him back, Bob Beckel [liberal political annalist] is forgoing his yearly donation to NPR in honor of Juan Williams, and the Fox people are PISSED their buddy Juan got screwed and are having a hard time keeping it professional [I love Megan Kelly]. The only non-anti-NPR report I read was a Times piece trying to present the controversy as a FOX-opinion-journalism vs NPR-fact-journalism debate… please… The Times and I stand in line together for food stamps…

Now it’s apparent that NPR REALLY stepped in the warm sticky shit. People are advertising their funding sources. A movement has started efforts to remove NPR’s Federal funding. It’s fund raising week – lol. And this whole thing has proven that NPR is a Liberal organization and has totally undermined their credibility.

Now I understand many don’t feel NPR is unfairly Liberal. That was my sentiment as well. I was kidding myself of course, just like you, but I can’t stay convinced any longer, not with this idiot Schiller at the helm, not with George Soros giving them 1.8 million dollars, not with this blatant double-standard, not with this obviously politically motivated knee-jerk vilification of a good man. And seriously – this was just a plain stupid move. It’s blown any credibility I personally had in the organization’s editorial choices – the opposite of the stated intention.

There’s more to come I’m sure. Schiller is going to get canned I bet. She may have ruined NPR. They might have to stoop to capitalism, or worse yet, STOP PLAYING PRAIRIE FUCKING HOME FUCKING COMPANION, or tone down their minimum three shows a day focus on something about homosexuals.

Happy Birthday to me.
NPR’s up a tree.
ACORN their funding dear congress.
He he he he he he.        

Comic Dove Presents

click on image to enlarge

Introducing Comic Dove!

Comic Dove will be rolling out some of the finest and funniest political comics in the weeks and months to come here on Noisy Dove.com   Please Enjoy the first of many savvy comics, and pass it on!

Seeing all the political insane nonsense going on today is enough to make your head explode! Between Obama’s blatant contempt for doing anything productive or logical, Kagan’s falling-off-the-left-side progressive utterings and weasling, and all the other socialist government expansion, you’d think you were locked in a nightmare of mortal stupidity. It’s frightening to watch this craziness. What the hell is going on in this country? What do these politicians think there place is? They walk around with total disregard for the will of the country. They mock their constituents like their place in office is secured by an unmovable foundation. There is a certain swell growing across the nation. November is forming to be a desperate and long suffering quenching of dire thirst. When people go to vote, there will be such a fervent changing of the tides it’ll more resemble class five rapids.

Its so dam obvious that the nation is fed up with the government, yet the dems and progressives continue to behave as though everything is as normal and carry on with the status quo. And the republicans continue to act like a bunch of spineless candy-asses. If ever there were few good choices among the available options, now is certainly the pinnacle of that dilemma. We need some big-balled, shameless, unapologetic, and uncompromising real people like Christie to take on these flagrant progressive’s who think they can rule the majority with their fear and scare tactics. Christie has done a great job taking on the unions and other progressive and liberal institutions that are bankrupting and destroying the country. If we had a bunch of Christies in Washington, we’d actually get things done and call out ignorance, incompetence, and waste.

We’ve got to get things rolling in the opposite direction with the elections in November. If we don’t, it will be terrifying to see what further destruction the dems do to the nation. They are already throwing out every liberal agenda and passing them like a sieve. They know the shit stick is coming and are desperately doing all they can before it slaps them in the ass right out of office. November just can’t come quick enough.

Despite the poppycock going on in government, there is a some amazing news! Noisy Dove is welcoming a new member to the team, Comic Dove! You have to stop by tomorrow and see Comic Dove’s first comic post. You’re going to love it for sure! Get ready to laugh your ass off!

In the recent primaries and elections, the Tea Party has proven itself a political force. I still don’t know what to make of them, though. They’s stated they don’t want to create another political party, but reform the ones we’ve got. I like that. Yet there’s something about their decked out patriot costumes and slogans that shouts Obama Birthers and 9/11 Truthers. What do you think? Is the Tea Party something to support?

Movements can be powerful. A powerful movement is good or dangerous – depending on your politics.

The Tea Party is a unique type of movement for the United States. It’s large and quiet. Most US movements are small and loud, representing specific minority issues, and are often organized and financed by unions and other organizations.

The Tea Party movement represents the general ideas of efficiently small government and personal responsibility, which are ideas held by the majority of working Americans, regardless of past voting habits. And the movement is ‘grass roots,’ meaning it simply sprang up comprising numerous like-minded people throughout society. That’s why Tea Party rallies are held on the weekend, so the whole group doesn’t have to get the day off, unlike the common Hippy-Liberal rallies that appear on weekdays intentionally to be disruptive.

You can tell the Tea Party movement is powerful just by how nervous it makes outspoken Liberals. And the Liberal criticism of the movement is weak at best. Liberals, including Obama, describe the Tea Party like they’re Anarchists, wanting no government – but the Tea Party just wants government to stop growing wildly. They agree government is a good thing.

Liberals describe the Tea Party as hateful and dangerous – but the Tea Party has harmed no one, committed no property damage (unheard of at Liberal rallies), don’t cause disruption, and even pick up after themselves. The favorite Liberalcriticism of the Tea Party, of course, is that Tea Party activists are anti-Obama racists – but the only examples of racist behavior has been by Liberals planting themselves at Tea Party rallies. There’s even a $100,000 reward for evidence of a Tea Partier using a racial slur – unclaimed!

The Tea Party has proven a strong force in the few special elections held since its appearance. And if you believe in its basic principles – not further growing/financing more government bureaucracies – then supporting it is natural. The few goofballs wearing the 1700s gear, birthers, and 9/11 truthers are few at most. As far as political rallies go, you’d expect to see more weirdos. But the average Tea Partier is the average working American. Don’t be fooled by the press and its tendency to show only the most eccentric or dangerous looking members of a protest in its news reports. Yeah, the Tea Party is mostly white, but so is America.

The real question is strategic: What will this movement mean for the direction of the country? Movements like this can be extremely productive in promoting their ideas – but can be equally as destructive to them.

Electing Brown in Massachusetts was an example of a productive direction of power. It stuck a republican into one of the most traditionally Democratic seats in Congress. An example of a possibly destructive direction was the Tea Party induced victory of Rand Paul over Trey Grayson in Kentucky’s Republican primary election for the mid-term Senate race. Grayson was the more electable candidate, the one establishment Republicans were backing. And Rand Paul, somewhat a radical, has since already said a few ‘unelectable’ things…

So we’ll see. If this were a Democrat upsergence I’d predict that the eventual result would be repetition of history: Dems splitting the vote and handing victory to the minority, how Lincoln got elected. But the Tea Party is mostly Republican and Libertarian. The Libertarians worry me, but Republicans are generally a big-picture type of people who will recognize the necessity of electing electable people, rather than ideal people.

And by ‘electable’ I don’t mean moderate. Indeed, America wants a moderate government, one that will provide expert non-ideological solutions. But that would require expert non-ideological people. And those kinds of people rarely run for political office and even more rarely are elected (they’re usually ugly and/or awkward). So we have to settle for electing the most reasonable seeming ideologs in even numbers on each side of the spectrum. Right now we’re dealing with a swinging pendulum in that respect.

The American people have fallen down on the job.  We complain about what we have and do not have and blame the politicians for everything and then…we re-elect them.  96% re-election rate.  Why?  Because we don’t do our homework.  We are “too busy” watching American Idol and doing other forms of entertainment, sitting on our butts instead of holding our leaders accountable for their decisions.  Most people can’t name their Representative or their 2 Senators, let alone how their congressmen voted on the last bill.

The reasons for this are probably innumerable, but I will point out two of them.  Technological advances throughout history are often a result of the desire to make things easier.  We want things to be easier because we tend toward laziness.  I would rather sleep in than go to work.  I would rather come home and play video games than go for a run and study some important topic.  But great men and women have shaken off the bonds of sloth and aspired to something greater than comfort and rest.  They are the ones who won WWI and WWII, founded the United States, and landed on a man on the moon (12 of them actually).  They are also the ones who had the character to do what was right instead of what would get them ahead.  In my opinion, a leader without character is no leader at all.  In case you haven’t noticed, we have very few leaders in this country.

The second problem is one of mathematical definition.  Intelligence Quotient, or IQ, is a measure of ones intelligence based on standardized tests.  The mean score is 100 with >160 being considered genius, and below 70 being cognitively impaired.  The scores of a population create a normal distribution, or bell curve, which shows that the majority of people fall within a certain range.  By definition, the mean is 100.  Psychologists and social workers will claim that the “average” is a range and the majority of people fall into that range. Regardless, the statistical mean is 100, and half the population falls below it, by definition.  Point being, half the population is below average intelligence.  You think your life is tough, imagine what it is like for stupid people!  Ok, that was insensitive, but the truth hurts.

The intelligence thing leads me to believe that many people are less able to fully understand the issues at hand and make a reasonable conclusion.  Studies have shown that people with a higher IQ tend to absorb more of the material being presented, although the relationship is only about 25%.  Still, it gives the geniuses and advantage right from the start.  Now if you do have a higher IQ and you distract yourself with garbage from the television every day, don’t exercise, don’t eat right, don’t sleep enough, etc. you have little capacity to learn what the hell is going on in the world.  All you have is your 25% to get you by.

My plea to smart people: The stupid people need you.  Get off your asses and learn something about the people who control how you live, how much in taxes you pay, and what type of future your children will have.

My plea to stupid people:  You are not stupid.  You have no excuse for not knowing things.  You may have to work harder than others to get by and understand things, but you are more than capable of it.  So do it.

Dear Noisy Dove,

The recently passed illegal immigration law in Arizona is apparently supported by 70% of the state’s voters, yet President Obama in a public ceremony called the bill, and so the people, misguided. He spoke generally of a different kind of reform needed. What sort would that be? …other than writing out a US birth certificate for anyone who wants one.

Obama is part of a group that doesn’t like that illegal immigration is illegal. (this group also likes to scare Latinos and other minorities away from the Republican vote) Instead of trying to make wander-in immigration legal, Obama’s group over the years has made enforcing immigration laws exceedingly difficult – that’s why illegal immigration is so popular among immigrants.

Arizona’s new law simply makes illegal immigration illegal under Arizona law, and requires officers to check citizenship status if there is probable cause to believe a suspect is an illegal immigrant. So essentially this law is undoing Progressive efforts to make a law they don’t agree with unenforceable. Obama doesn’t like that so he’s propped up one of his Straw Men again.

Obama can’t argue the logic of the law. AZ has half a million illegal immigrants and the number is growing while Mexican drug violence is seeping over the border. Schools are crowded and hurting for funds while parents are unemployed or under employed watching debt and taxes rise and incomes fall. And the Federal government refuses to secure the border. What does he expect a border State to do?

Obama’s Straw Man in this case is the usual Liberal argument against most anything they can’t counter logically: Racial. He calls it irresponsible and misguided – something that will: “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

What I call irresponsible is an insecure border that leaks thousands of illegal immigrants per day. What’s misguided is hampering law enforcement because you disagree with a law. One notion of fairness that many Americans cherish – especially legal immigrants – is the notion that anyone can become an American if they’re willing to go through the process. (not many countries allow this). And one thing that undermines trust between police and their communities is overburdening the police with hundreds of unidentifiable people entering those communities on a daily basis and then limiting how police can go about enforcing laws that are clearly and blatantly being broken.

Fundamentally, I think it’s lofty, arrogant, and un-American for the Federal government to tell a border state how it should or shouldn’t enforce immigration laws, within reason. And within reason, there is no smaller thing one can do to enforce immigration law than to require a police officer to check citizenship status when that officer has serious reason to question citizenship.

Obama also argues that this law is an example of why the Fed needs to pass immigration reform – to prevent more state laws from appearing that make a Federal law also a State law and require State enforcement. This would be a sound argument – although contradictory – if he were planning anything more than a soft political give-away.

What needs to happen first is our borders need to be secured. Right now this will require the National Guard, and is an optimal job for them. I would have disagreed with this a few years ago. Militarizing the border between us and one of our closest allies is bad for relations, and just looks jackassish. But things are getting serious. Ranchers have trash laden paths through their property and some are taking border security into their own hands. Mexico is fighting what is essentially an insurgency, which is coming over our weak border. And of course, we have unidentifiable people and illegal drugs poring through.

Long term, a serious barrier needs to be constructed. The border fence idea was good, but the contractors screwed it up. Regardless, a triple barrier with a road running down it would be ideal, along with ever improving surveillance equipment. It doesn’t matter how well you’re catching illegals if they’re pouring back in just as fast.

Next would be dealing with the current illegal immigrants. Now, I understand Amnesty is a bad word. But seriously, a society like ours, in most cases, is going to offer some type of stream-lined path to established illegal immigrants, it just is, that’s just how we are. The key to amnesty not breaking our society down is to observe step 1: Secure the borders.

Once the border is secure, and the current illegals are given amnesty or shipped off, we can then look at current immigration law. According to many farmers – for example – migrant workers are essential to their business. These workers are often undocumented and the jobs they do won’t be had by citizens. So certainly, a migrant worker program could be helpful.

The path to citizenship could also be examined, because bottom line, when people are literally risking life and limb to get here with the purpose of building a better and honest life, the legal path should be at least competitive with the shark-infested and 50-mile-desert-walk options.

As for the Arizona law’s probable affect, I agree with Squab Dove:

I say let’s see the arizona law in practice and see if the proof is in the pudding.  Maybe this new law will be really effective.  Maybe totally useless.  who knows.  AT LEAST Arizona is bucking up and doing something.  They are taking charge, as they should be.  Its good not to rely on the fed too much.  I think we need the states taking matters into their own hands more.  This is different though to some degree because it is the national border and hence a matter of national security.  So the fed should be asking Arizona what they need and how the fed can support their efforts to secure the border, not calling them misguided and offering shit on a stick as an alternate solution, or worse, amnesty…

Instead of vilifying AZ and talking about irresponsibility and boycotts for one’s own personal political gain, one should embrace such ideas as part of the 50 laboratories of democracy, freedom, and prosperity we have here – one of our greatest and least utilized strengths. And after implementation, let’s be honest about the results. *cynical laugh*

Something has to be done, and what has to be done isn’t going to be soft or pretty and will require more than creating new bureaucracy and shoveling more money – which is all this Leftist Congress will do.

And listen – Republicans – take it easy on this one. Don’t go getting all blustered over amnesty. Who cares, seriously. The Latino voting block is a perfect fit under the Republican tenants. Don’t let the Liberals paint you as anti-Latino bigots. They’re already picking recent immigrants off with all these lofty entitlement promises. In other words, if you need political points in your district, and you have Latinos, don’t hammer on amnesty. The key is border security and only hippies and modern Socialists will argue with that.