Come Fly With Me! What happens when you put Democrats in office? pt.3 The TSA’s new rules (Attack of the Republican Blogs)

Today on my Republican blog: Come fly with me: Yet another example of the lunacy that occurs when you elect democrats into office.

To those of you who’ve booked a flight today, you may have noticed that you were asked two questions that were totally unrelated to your travel plans: (1) your birth date and (2) your gender. What this information has to do with purchasing a plane ticket is completely beyond me.

Starting today, many air travelers will be asked for their birth date and gender when making airline reservations.

In the latest bizarre manifestation of the so-called “Secure Flight” program, which switches the responsibility of checking passenger’s identities from a particular airline to the government (socialism), the TSA has said that it has made this decision to create more “public visibility”.

Previously, airlines checked passenger identities against a list of known or suspected terrorists. But to anyone who remembers, the 9/11 commission decided that the government would be better suited to handle this responsibility since they’re the ones who compile the “terror watch lists”.

According to the TSA, government control increases security and reduces the number of people who’re mistaken for terrorists. That part I agree with. But the thought of being required to provide my birth date and gender to a ticket agent over the phone or to an airline’s website just begs the question: what information do they have to check it against?

Since most reservations are made over the phone or online, theoretically they already have my name and my credit card information. So what exactly does my age or my gender have to do with booking a flight? It’s not like its going be printed on my boarding pass. Are we really in the age of big brother?

Hypothetically, if I were to tell the agent that I’m 29 when I’m really 30; does he or she have any way to find out if I’m being honest? If someone named Pat, who’s really a woman, were to say she that she’s a man; would there be any way for the TSA to find out? This is just yet another example of the socialization of the United States, yet another example of the increased bureaucracy we’ve seen from the Obama administration and so on and so on and so on.

To those of you who voted for change: congratulations. The change we received is higher taxes, an attempt at socialized healthcare and now this TSA nonsense. Where does it end? Allow me to tell you: when the new Republican Party takes this country back in 2010 and 2012. I’m all in favor of screening passengers against a list of suspected terrorists; I’d love not to be on a plane with one, but it’s just starting to seem to me that since we’ve had a this administration, our country is starting to look more and more like…well…you know what I was going to say.

Can we please stop this socialism, stop the development of this big brother state, stop the transfer of money from the rich to the not so rich (capital gains taxes anyone?), stop electing people who’ll censor anyone who’s critical of them (how’s your blog doing?), and remember that at the end of the day…we’re all Americans.

Please people- remember that this is 2009. We have very wonderful things (I’m about to get sarcastic) such as the internet, tv, talk radio, newspapers, ect, ect, ect. You have no excuse for not being informed about the agenda of the people that you elect to office. Wake up! You can’t complain if you don’t vote. And you definitely can’t complain if you vote for a democrat.

But in closing, special thanks to all of our Armed Forces, the RNC, the Missouri Republican Party, the Illinois Republican Party, the College Republican National Committee, the National Black Republican Association, the Wall Street Journal, KSDK Channel 5, KTVI Fox 2 News, my personal assistant /gf #2 Jeanette, Missy (is this thing on?), Joy (no really- is this thing on?), Kevin (move to the right), all of my Republican Blogs and Bloggers (They’re really giving 2012 to us on a silver platter), my Libertarian blogs and bloggers (booked a flight today?), my Democrat blogs and bloggers (we’ll be at your town halls!), and to all Political blogs and bloggers: Let your voice be heard. GOP in 2012! If you’re not on the right, you’re wrong. Ready by 2011 to win in 2012! And to all my Illinois residents who enjoy having a spirit every once and a while: how do you like the tax on beer, wine and liquor going up 90% on September 1st? This is what happens when you put democrats in office. Follow STL_Politics on twitter!

Barack Obama’s Heathcare Reform Plan- Once Again…Let’s Socialize! A Liberal State of Mind pt. 2 (Attack of the Republican Blogs)

Today on my Republican blog: Once again, let’s socialize! (The current state of the Democratic Party aka the Republican version of The Best Week Ever). For a group of individuals who’ve spent the last few years campaigning (and somehow winning) on the promise of making a change in politics, it’s extraordinarily funny to see just how much in disarray the democratic party is in today. From my perspective, it looks like the only change they’re trying to affect is socialism- and they’re not even good at accomplishing that. From nationalizing banks, car manufactures, TARP, and now this health care initiative fiasco? It’s almost like democrats are trying to give us (Republicans) the country back in 2010 and 2012. That’s the exact reason that I keep saying we’ll be ready by 2011 to win in 2012. I just had a gut feeling from the beginning that if democrats got into any form of office in 2008, they would do what liberals always seem to do: find new and innovative ways to ruin America. As evidenced by Barack Obama’s national (socialized) health care plan, it’s apparent that they’re just picking up just where Hillary Clinton left off in the mid 90’s. I’m just assuming that most democrats just enjoy failing at everything they do. Think about it. Whatever city or town or municipality you happen to live in, take a second and ask yourself what ward or district or community has the most crime, the most unemployment, the lowest property values, the worst schools, ect, ect, ect. Now ask yourself this: what party does the mayor, alderman, committee members, county executive, school board members, senators, state representatives, local politicians, ect, ect, ect belong to? If you couldn’t guess- it’s the Democratic Party. It’s so perplexing to me that the very people who claim to be the party of the people (look up democracy), who claim to care about their children and their grandchildren’s future (global warming anyone?) would vote these indecisive, liberal clowns into office at all levels; year, after year, after year. To us (Republicans) it’s really of little consequence now, because we all know that each day that passes by, you’ll have more time to introduce more asinine, trite, nonsensical proposals, propositions, bills, legislation and other comedy that your party thinks will fool the American people. And guess what? Nobody’s buying it. What have we gotten so far with democratic leadership? Higher taxes, a larger government presence and an off kilter attempt at socialization. Wake up people! 2012 is ours and we’re currently organizing this very second for 2010 and 2012. But before I let you read this funny (to Republicans) and accurate article my friend e-mailed me, I have to give my respect and thanks to Erica Werner and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar from the Associated Press, all of our Armed Forces, the RNC, the Missouri Republican Party, the Illinois Republican Party, the College Republican National Committee, the National Black Republican Association, the Wall Street Journal, KSDK Channel 5, KTVI Fox 2 News, my personal assistant /gf #2 Jeanette, all of my Republican Blogs and Bloggers (I’m still here!), my Libertarian blogs and bloggers (like your tax hikes?), my Democrat blogs and bloggers (keep giving 2012 to us on a silver platter!), and to all Political blogs and bloggers: Let your voice be heard. GOP in 2012! If you’re not on the right, you’re wrong. Ready by 2011 to win in 2012! And visit http://grandoldparty2011.blogspot.com Enjoy!

WASHINGTON – Dissension within Democratic ranks over President Barack Obama’s health care initiative all but paralyzed the House Friday, typifying just how many political land mines are littering the path to enactment.
The Obama White House figured on some pushback from congressional Republicans, but leaders of his own Democratic Party struggled to get things moving. A powerful House committee chairman threatened to force a floor vote to break the impasse within Democratic ranks — a drastic step that could roil the House.
Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said negotiations with fiscally conservative Democrats on his panel cannot continue indefinitely. But a floor vote would put fellow Democrats in an exposed position, having to cast a vote on a $544-billion upper-income tax increase that the Senate is unlikely to embrace to help pay for covering the millions of uninsured Americans.
The problems on the House side of the Capitol come a day after Senate Democratic leaders announced they would not go ahead as planned with a floor vote before Congress departs for its August recess. Senate Democrats are also divided. While some are negotiating with Republicans, others want to plow ahead on their own.
“We’re going to have to look at perhaps bypassing the (Energy and Commerce) committee because we’ve got to get moving on this legislation,” Waxman said. “I hope we don’t come to that conclusion.”
Two House panels have already passed legislation. Waxman is stymied because seven conservatives on his committee — part of a group called the Blue Dog Democrats — are sticking together.
Negotiations are continuing, but Waxman said he’s running out of patience.
“We’re not going to let them empower the Republicans to control the committee,” he said.
“This can’t be an interminable discussion,” Waxman added. He’s agreed to a study to address why Medicare rates are lower in rural areas in hopes of mollifying the Blue Dogs, many of whom represent small town constituencies. Billions of dollars are potentially at stake. Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he hoped the talks would end on a positive note and the bill could proceed through Waxman’s committee.
As lawmakers continued to haggle, the White House said Obama will keep working on health care in August even if Congress goes home.
“Nobody in planning meetings decided we should just take August off,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “For a long time we planned to continue the discussion on the issues that are important, be it the economy, health care … education. That had always in many ways been priced into the scenario.”
Obama envisions legislation that would, for the first time, require all Americans to be insured. A new government insurance program would compete with private insurers, and insurance companies would be barred from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. The goals are to hold down costs and extend coverage to most of the 50 million uninsured. The price tag: $1 trillion-plus over a decade.
Obama met Friday morning at the White House with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. Reid said Thursday that the panel will push to complete a bill before the Senate breaks Aug. 7. Baucus has been negotiating with the panel’s Republicans in hopes of producing a bipartisan bill.
Finance Committee negotiators are looking at a bill that probably won’t satisfy Democratic liberals. One of their top goals is a new government-sponsored insurance plan, and that was a centerpiece of legislation passed by the Senate’s health committee. But Finance Committee members are looking at nonprofit co-ops instead.
In the House, the Blue Dogs want more done to try to control rising medical costs.
Democratic leaders say the back-and-forth is a normal part of the legislative process, but Republicans are latching on to the disarray in delight. The Republican National Committee has taken to issuing news releases headlined “Chaos” that highlight disagreements within the Democrats’ ranks.
In a Tweeter post on Friday, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, gave a shout-out to the Democratic dissidents: “bludogs keep barkin.” Grassley is Baucus’ counterpart in the Senate health care negotiations.

Rewind! The Genius of Leo Strauss: A Republican State of Mind (Attack of the Republican Blogs)

Today on my Republican blog: The genius of Leo Strauss. This is a very special treat for all of my Republicans. I know most of you are already well versed in the works of Leo Strauss and politics, so I decided to post this for all of the confused liberals who either misrepresent Leo Strauss’s teachings on purpose or just out of sheer ignorance. It’s an article from the June 7, 2003 edition of the New York Times. And guess who wrote it? Jenny Strauss Clay. I would think she would know her father a little better than anyone else. Just a bit of advice to my left leaning friends: go to Borders or get a library card and read one of Strauss’s books. I suggest you start with Natural Right and History. I know almost all of it’s going to go over your head at first, but don’t be discouraged. Read it again. And then read it again and again and again until it starts to make sense to you. And once you come to the realization that everything you’ve always believed in is false…that’s when the healing starts. At that point, the Republican Party won’t look so bad to you anymore. In closing, I’d like to give a special thanks to the RNC, the Missouri Republican Party, the Illinois Republican Party, the College Republican National Committee, the Wall Street Journal, KSDK Channel 5 and KTVI Fox 2 News. To all of my Republicans and Republican blogs and bloggers, my Libertarians and Libertarian blogs and bloggers, my Democrats and Democratic blogs and bloggers (come to the light), and to all Political blogs and bloggers: Let your voice be heard. GOP in 2012! Enjoy

June 7, 2003
The Real Leo Strauss
By Jenny Strauss Clay
Recent news articles have portrayed my father, Leo Strauss, as the mastermind behind the neoconservative ideologues who control United States foreign policy. He reaches out from his 30-year-old grave, we are told, to direct a ”cabal” (a word with distinct anti-Semitic overtones) of Bush administration figures hoping to subject the American people to rule by a ruthless elite. I do not recognize the Leo Strauss presented in these articles.
My father was not a politician. He taught political theory, primarily at the University of Chicago. He was a conservative insofar as he did not think that change is necessarily change for the better.
Leo Strauss believed in the intrinsic dignity of the political. He believed in and defended liberal democracy; although he was not blind to its flaws, he felt it was the best form of government that could be realized, ”the last best hope.” He was an enemy of any regime that aspired to global domination. He despised utopianism — in our time, Nazism and Communism — which is predicated on the denial of a fundamental and even noble feature of human nature: love of one’s own. His heroes were Churchill and Lincoln. He was not an observant Jew, but he loved the Jewish people and he saw the establishment of Israel as essential to their survival.
To me, what characterized him above all else was his total lack of vanity and self-importance. As a result, he had no interest in honors within the academy, and was completely unsuited to political ambition. His own earliest passion, he confessed, was to spend his life raising rabbits (Flemish Giants) and reading Plato.
He was first and foremost a teacher. He did not seek to mold people in his own image. Rather, he was devoted to helping young people see the world as it is, in all its misery and splendor. The objects of his teaching were the Great Books, those works generally recognized as the foundation of a liberal education. But that alone was not a sufficient reason for reading them.
He began where good teachers should begin, from his students’ received opinions, in order to scrutinize their foundation. At that time, as is still true today, academia leaned to the left; hence such questioning required an examination of the left’s tenets. Had the prevailing beliefs been different, they too would have been subject to his skeptical inquiry.
Among the received opinions of the time was an unquestioned faith in progress and science combined with a queasiness regarding any kind of moral judgment, or ”relativism.” Many young people were confused, without a compass, with nothing substantial to admire. My father’s turning them to the Great Books was thus motivated not merely by aesthetic or antiquarian interest, but by a search for an understanding of mankind’s present predicament: what were its sources and what, if any, were the alternatives? The latter he found in the writings of the ancient Greeks.
Furthermore, he insistently confronted his students with the question of the ”good life.” For him, the choice boiled down to the life in accordance with Revelation or the life according to Reason — Jerusalem versus Athens. The vitality of Western tradition, he felt, lay in the invigorating tension between the two.
My father saw reading not as a passive exercise but as taking part in an active dialogue with the great minds of the past. One had to read with great care, great respect, and try, as he always said, to ”understand the author as he understood himself.” Today this task, admittedly difficult and demanding, is dismissed in fashionable academia as impossible. Rather, we are told, each reader inevitably constructs his own text over which the author has no control, and the writer’s intentions are irrelevant.
The fact is that Leo Strauss also recognized a multiplicity of readers, but he had enough faith in his authors to assume that they, too, recognized that they would have a diverse readership. Some of their readers, the ancients realized, would want only to find their own views and prejudices confirmed; others might be willing to open themselves to new, perhaps unconventional or unpopular, ideas. I personally think my father’s rediscovery of the art of writing for different kinds of readers will be his most lasting legacy.
Although I was never a student of my father’s, I sat in on a class of his in the 1960′s; I think it was on Xenophon’s ”Cyropaedia.” He was a small, unprepossessing and, truth be told, ugly man (daughters are their parents’ worst critics), with none of the charisma that one associates with ”great teachers.” And yet there was something utterly charming. One of the students would read little chunks of the text, and my father would comment and call for discussion. What marked this class was a combination of an engagement with questions of the highest seriousness (in this case, what is the best form of government) with the laughter of intellectual play.
It was magic. If only the truth had the power to make the misrepresentations of his achievement vanish like smoke and dust.