.
Speaking of the presidency (which I was just doing below in my August 14th post entitled “IT’S SIX OF OBAMA, HALF A DOZEN OF McCAIN”), I’ve decided to retain this theme for at least one more installment here.
Just the other day, I pulled out an old back issue of The New American magazine (May 26, 1997; Vol. 13, No. 11) and read the interesting column on page 28 under the heading of “Ranking Presidents.” Here’s what TNA printed:
The New York Times Magazine for December 15, 1996 reported the results of a poll of modern historians who were asked to rank our presidents. Writing in the Free Market newsletter for March 1997, Robert Higgs, research director for the Independent Institute and editor of the Independent Review, notes that “all but one of the presidents ranked as Great or Near Great had an intimate association with war, either in office or by reputation before taking office.” In contrast, “of the eleven presidents ranked as Below Average or Failure, all but one (Nixon) managed to keep the nation at peace during their terms in office…”
Higgs believes that the best President during the past century may have been Grover Cleveland, who served from 1893-’97. Higgs comments: “He kept the country at peace. He respected the Constitution, acknowledging that the national government has only a limited mission to perform and shaping his policies accordingly. He fought to lower tariffs, preserved the gold standard in its time of crisis, and restored order forcibly when hoodlums disturbed the peace on a wide front during the great railroad strike of 1894.”
George Washington also ranks high with Higgs (as he did with the historians), in part because he “prescribed the sensible foreign policy, later slandered as ‘isolationism,’ that served our nation well for more than a century.” Of the presidents since Cleveland, Higgs ranks Calvin Coolidge highest, noting, “He sponsored sharp tax cuts and greatly reduced the national debt.”
Higgs reserves the other end of the spectrum for “Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson,” whom he believes belong at the bottom “for their statist economic policies as well as their supremely catastrophic war policies.” Scandal and corruption are reprehensible to be sure, and have tainted most administrations to some degree, but such factors “pale by comparison to the damage presidential policy decisions have wreaked.”
The Constitution, Higgs writes, suffered damage during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Administration “that none of his successors has repaired and most have made worse. Certainly since 1932 – and, one might argue, since 1896 – no President has been true to his oath of office.”
Higgs recalls that the “people who ratified the original Constitution never intended the Presidency to be a powerful office spawning ‘great men,’ ” since the “Presidency was intended to be a largely ceremonial position whose occupant would confine himself to enforcing federal laws.” But over time, “abruptly during Lincoln’s Presidency and progressively during the twentieth century, presidents seized more and more power.”
Higgs concludes with the observation that “American liberty will never be reestablished so long as elites and masses alike look to the President to perform supernatural feats and therefore tolerate his virtually unlimited exercise of power. Until we can restore limited, constitutional government in this country, God save us from great presidents.” (Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL. 36849) -- Robert W. Lee
I’m sure that Mayberry’s barber, Floyd Lawson, would have been pleased to learn that Higgs had relatively positive things to say about Floyd’s favorite President, Calvin Coolidge.
Here are a couple of other interesting facts about President Grover Cleveland that went unmentioned in the TNA article:
Cleveland is notable for having been the only President in U.S. history to have served two terms in office nonconsecutively: he was both our 22nd and 24th President, serving from 1885 to 1889, and again from 1893 to 1897. Interestingly, Cleveland was also the only President to marry while in office – he was sworn in as a bachelor (i.e., a very smart man!) in 1885, but married his 21-year old bride a year later.
And did you know that the Baby Ruth candy bar was not named after the famous homer-hitting baseball player Babe Ruth, but was actually named after President Grover Cleveland’s daughter Ruth, who unfortunately passed away in her early teens? I learned that sweet fact last May 15th from the 2008 “Fact Or Crap Calendar.”
[*Thanks again, Aard!]
Unlike Barber Floyd’s choice, Calvin Coolidge is not my favorite President. My own favorite is Andrew “Old Hickory” Jackson. Although he was certainly a flawed man in some significant ways, and his administration made some egregious errors, I love Jackson for the monumentally ferocious and extremely important stand he took against America’s central bank. For that alone, every American owed Jackson a great debt of gratitude. It’s too bad that We, the American People, weren’t intelligent enough to honor Jackson’s tremendous victory by ensuring that a central bank was never installed in this country again. In the Federal Reserve System, we have exactly the very disease that “Old Hickory” fought so hard to destroy and heal our country from.
.
To put in my six cents (what with inflation an’ all) in regards to the worst President of all-time, without hesitation, I bestow that dubious honor on Woodrow Wilson. This country has never recovered and never will recover from the disastrous long-term (i.e., “permanent”) effects of “The Wilson Wreckage.” Picking up right where Wilson left off, I reserve the number two spot on my Bad Presidents list for FDR (“Frankly, Destructive Revolution”). After that, it’s anybody’s guess where Carter, Clinton and “W” fit in, but they unquestionably occupy high positions on this low list.
OK, so maybe we really haven’t had a decent president in over one hundred years. That doesn’t mean that our NEXT “Fearless Leader” (there’s another Rocky & Bullwinkle reference for ya) won’t adhere to the principles of our Founding Fathers. There’s no reason for us to be pessimistic and automatically dismiss the idea that Barack Obama or John McCain will reinstitute Constitutional principles like smaller federal government, sound economic structure, noninterventionist foreign policy and a respect for states’ rights and personal liberty. There’s every reason to be optimistic about the possibility of turning this country around and reversing our downward social, moral and economic trajectory. We can improve things, I just know we can. I’ve got it, kids! Let’s put on a show! (Oh, wait, that’s all this 2008 election process is, isn’t it?)
Ya know, all we really need is for “B.O.” or “John McNeocon” to take their oath of office seriously (i.e., to really mean it when they swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic); all we really need is for our future president to eschew his egopolitical leanings in favor of Constitutional Republican statesman-like qualities, and all will be well. If B.O. or McNeocon have less elitist proclivities than we suspect [Cough!-Cough!] and possess more honesty and genuine interest in The American Way than we believe, then we kids are going to be alright.
Yeah, and if dogs wallowed in troughs they’d be pigs. And if pigs had wings they’d be flies. And if flies could vote they’d be U.S. citizens. And if U.S. citizens voted for Obama or McCain they’d be dirty dogs. And if dirty dogs wallowed in troughs . . . Awww, it’s a vicious cycle. Let’s just admit it: we’re screwed like Steven Spielberg in the deep waters of divorce court versus Amy “Jaws” Irving. No matter what, our next president will - at the very least - cost us an arm and a leg.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
[Mo’ Presidential Yak below…]
.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
IT'S SIX OF OBAMA, HALF A DOZEN OF McCAIN
.
It’s just so dispiriting when I reflect on the fact that for the first time in quite awhile, the American People actually had a genuine opportunity to elect a man to the office of president who would have represented REAL “Change” and who would have attempted to make meaningful reforms in our seriously corrupted un-Constitutional form of government, but the voters let this golden opportunity slip away like a pickpocket at Oktoberfest. The man, the patriot, the doctor was “in” – Doctor RON PAUL – the moment was there – NOW! – all we lacked was the intelligence to “seize the day.” (And… uhm… well, when I say “we”, you know I don’t really mean “me”, don’t you? You know I mean “you”, right?)
Does anyone even recall that the United States Constitution proclaims itself to be “the supreme law of the land”? I have a great T-shirt that I bought via mail order and have worn for many years. It reads:
U. S. CONSTITUTION *
*Void where prohibited by law
The American People had a chance to nominate and then elect a candidate, an actual doctor, who had clearly diagnosed America’s ills (multiple forms of un-Constitutional collectivism), and who knew how to treat the diseased body (return to small, Constitutional government and free enterprise Capitalism – concepts that we haven’t even been within shouting distance of since prior to 1913), but for the six hundred and sixty-sixth trillionth and one half time, the American People were hoodwinked by the mainstream media, and instead of voting for authentic and much needed change, the Americans will once again go with the status quo: they will elect either Barack “Change-Rn’t-Really-Us” Obama or John “Old Man, Old Ways” McCain. Unless the unexpected happens, Obama will be our next president, but either way, we can expect a further slide into Orwellian Big Brother Socialism and our Brave New World. (“Brave New Nineteen Eighty-Four” y’all. Otherwise known as “2008 And Beyond.”)
Oh, boy howdy, what choices we have: you can have your brother’s cake and eat it too, with the radical high tax Socialism of “Mr. Change”, or you can vote for Neoconservative George W. McCain and get your Big Government Socialism shoved down your throat all the while you’re being lied to and told that it actually represents “smaller government Conservatism.” But if you’re no smarter than Republicans have shown themselves to be since long before the Ronald Reagan era, you won’t know the difference anyhow, so just swallow the socialistic s##t ‘n’ smile.
Yeah, the po’ American People have grown weary of Neocon Republicanism, so they’re going to vote “Change” this year and give the United States something that more closely resembles… uh… well, William Clintonism. Contemplating the 2008 presidential election and the response of the Americonned People, it brings to mind my most frequently quoted Bible verse: "As a dog returns to his own vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." (Proverbs 26:11). Please, Sir, may I have another serving of that “Change” that we’ve become so familiar with? Sure, it tastes terrible, but it’s the only flavor I can even imagine anymore.
The non-fool who has been living here in the U.S. for the last 25 years or so, would have noticed by now that it makes no difference whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat occupying the White House because either way, American Life continues to deteriorate. George Wallace once remarked that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the candidates offered by the Republican and Democrat parties, and he was, and remains, right about that. What we have here is a classic case of Dumb And Dumber. I’ll leave it to you to determine which is which. (Actually, the Dumb-O-Crats are dumber than the Repugnantcans but the difference is so inconsequential as to hardly be worth mentioning. There’s not a dollar’s worth of difference in their intelligence – which is really about a dime when factoring in the inflation since Wallace’s 15 minutes of time in the sun.)
In the cover story “Apples To Oranges?” of the July 21st issue of The New American magazine, writer Charles Scaliger accurately says in comparing the proposed policies of Obama to McCain that the presidential contenders have “been winnowed down to two polished posers who offer the American public, yet again, not a choice but an echo.” And I’ll add that even a few of the seeming differences are just a matter of “telling the necessary lies” in order to appease the targeted constituency. For example, those folks who really believe that Obama will recall the troops from Iraq are setting themselves up for a major disappointment: if he ever truly does pull them out of Iraq it will only be to establish them somewhere else in the Middle East. Whether you elect Obama or McCain, the soldiers are not coming home anytime soon, so just get used to the idea!
The most important but least understood point that Scaliger made in his article is the fact that since at least the 1930s, both major political parties and party candidates have been controlled by a semi-secret organization of (now) over 4,000 Elite Establishment Insiders known as the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (CFR). [If you think this is nonsense, click the link at the bottom of this Blog Bit.] The CFR was founded by a man who stated in print that he basically believed in “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” Scaliger tells us that of the 13 members of Obama’s Senior Working Group on National Security, 8 of them are CFR members, while one is a former member. “Mr. Change” also has CFR advisors on national finance and economics. As for John McCain, not only is McCain himself a CFR member, but he has at least 12 CFR members advising him. But here’s the real kicker: One of Obama’s foreign policy CFR advisors is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was not only Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy advisor, but he worked in a similar capacity for JOHN McCAIN during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign!
That is such a remarkably telling fact that I am going to repeat it for the benefit of my Dumb-O-Crat readers who traditionally excel more in emotional idealism than they do in realism and logic:
One of Obama’s foreign policy CFR advisors is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was not only Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy advisor, but he worked in a similar capacity for JOHN McCAIN during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign!
OK, now ask yourself, how much “Change” do you REALLY think you can expect by electing Barack Obama to the presidency? You’re being swindled again, boys and girls! It’s the same old story, the same old song and dance with all The Usual Suspects! Yeah, “Change” my a##! The candidates are employing all the usual advisors, but they are telling you to expect big Changes. Boy, do they think you’re stupid! (Are you?)
As if that wasn’t enough, it has been reported (and is almost assuredly true) that Obama was given a place at the table at the last Bilderberger meeting. In case you’re unaware, the Bilderbergers are another powerful international cabal of Elites very concerned about the well-being of you, the little guy in America….. WRONG!
If all of this is news to you, then you need to admit that you are simply an uneducated voter destined to vote for what you guess to be “the lesser of two evils.” However, maybe you should consider that given but two choices, even monkeys could pick the lesser of two evils 50% of the time, and regardless of whether or not we discount the ballots with hanging chads.
The American People like to promote the idea that they support the underdog, but this is mostly a lie; the American People, more than anything, love a “winner.” You disagree? See if you can count the number of new hats, jerseys, and bumper stickers that will suddenly manifest in celebration of the team that wins the next World Series, Super Bowl and NBA Championship. If every person who said that they’d like to have voted for Ron Paul but couldn’t because they thought he had no chance of winning, had in fact voted for him regardless, he might very well have made the Republican race quite interesting. Paul did extraordinarily well (“frighteningly well” to the Establishment Elites) in the preprimary straw polls, but when it came time to cast real votes, Americans chose to side with “pure politicians” instead, so long as they were convinced that their vote had a reasonably good chance of making a victor of their “lesser evil”, and making a winner of themselves by association in the process.
Meanwhile, I had reregistered from Independent to Repugnantcan solely in order to be allowed to vote for Ron Paul in the Arizona primary. (I have since reverted to an Independent, and will vote for Dr. Paul a second time in November’s general election by writing his name on my ballot; I refuse to vote for “evil”, lesser evil or otherwise – I value my vote much too highly to “waste” it like that. You want MY vote? You have to be worthy of MY vote.)
A friend of mine recently said in an e-mail that he figured he agreed with my theological positions 97.995% of the time. I responded: But that 97.995% is just a "rough estimate", right? Well, that's not bad. That's about the rate in which I agree with Ron Paul's positions.
About two months ago, I read Doctor Paul’s bestselling April 2008 book “THE REVOLUTION: A MANIFESTO” (don’t leave for the voting booth without it!) and I was pleasantly impressed by how well he – in just 170 small pages - was able to explain to a wide audience his positions on many important political issues. (In my opinion, it was a campaign blunder that this book wasn’t published much earlier.) Now I am going to post several excerpts from Ron Paul’s book “THE REVOLUTION” to illustrate what sort of AUTHENTIC CHANGES the American People could have hoped for if they had been smart enough to nominate and then elect The Good Doctor to the presidency:
Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us “change,” and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, “change” always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.
Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that’s the one option Americans are never permitted to hear.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page ix]
With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multitrillion-dollar promises of “free” goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in – this is not a misprint – 130 countries around the world. … Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion. … Truth is treason in the empire of lies.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page x]
Every election season America is presented with a series of false choices. Should we launch preemptive wars against this country or that one? Should every American neighborhood live under this social policy or that one? Should a third of our income be taken away by an income tax or a national sales tax? The shared assumptions behind these questions, on the other hand, are never cast in doubt, or even raised. And anyone who wants to ask different questions or who suggests that the questions as framed exclude attractive, humane alternatives, is ipso facto excluded from mainstream discussion.
And so every four years we are treated to the same tired, predictable routine: two candidates with few disagreements on fundamentals pretend that they represent dramatically different philosophies of government.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 1]
The war in Iraq was one of the most ill-considered, poorly planned, and just plain unnecessary military conflicts in American history, and I opposed it from the beginning. But the beginning I am speaking of was not 2002 or 2003. As early as 1997 and 1998, shortly after my return to Congress after a dozen years back in my medical practice, I spoke out against the actions of the Clinton administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our later policy was being set at that time. Many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton administration attack Iraq later demanded that the Bush administration attack Iraq, exploiting the tragedy of September 11 to bring about their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of that country.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 21]
I oppose all foreign aid on principle… Foreign aid is not only immoral, since it involves the forced transfer of wealth, but it is also counterproductive, as a ceaseless stream of scholarship continues to show. Foreign aid has been a disaster in Africa, delaying sound economic reforms and encouraging wastefulness and statism. … Now, while free trade should be embraced, foreign aid should be absolutely rejected. Constitutional, moral, and practical arguments compel such a view. Constitutional authorization for such programs is at best dubious. Morally, I cannot justify the violent seizure of property from Americans in order to redistribute that property to a foreign government – and usually one that is responsible for the appalling material condition of its people. Surely we can agree that Americans ought not to be doing forced labor on behalf of other regimes, and that is exactly what foreign aid is.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Pages 34 & 99]
We have had troops in Korea for over five and a half decades. We have had troops in Europe and Japan for about as long. How many years is enough? An American presence in these places was supposed to be temporary, persisting only during the military emergencies that were cited as justification for bringing them there. Milton Friedman was right: there is nothing so permanent as a “temporary” government program.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 37]
Americans have the right to defend themselves against attack; that is not at issue. But that is very different from launching a preemptive war against a country that had not attacked us and could not attack us, that lacked a navy and an air force, and whose military budget was a fraction of a percent of our own. A policy of overthrowing or destabilizing every regime our government dislikes is no strategy at all, unless our goal is international chaos and domestic impoverishment.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 39]
(NOTE: I personally would argue that very frequently, creating international chaos and domestic impoverishment is EXACTLY the goal of our government’s operations. A long story which I have briefly addressed elsewhere. ~STMcC)
According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, all powers not delegated to the federal government by the states (in Article 1, Section 8) and not prohibited to the states in the Constitution (in Article 1, Section 10) are reserved to the states or to the people.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 44]
One day I walked into an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section. It was actually an abortion by hysterotomy. The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds. At that time doctors were not especially sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room. The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn’t there. I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was. …
If we can be so callous as to refer to a growing child in a mother’s womb as a parasite, I fear for our country’s future all the more. …
To those who argue that we cannot allow the states to make decisions on abortion since some will make the wrong ones, I reply that that is an excellent argument for world government – for how can we allow individual COUNTRIES to decide on abortion or other moral issues, if some may make the wrong decisions? Yet the dangers of a world government surely speak for themselves.
Let us therefore adopt the constitutional position, one that is achievable and can yield good results but that shuns the utopian idea that all evil can be eradicated.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Pages 59-61]
(NOTE: Like Dr. Paul, I am strongly Pro-Life, yet I do not feel that his position on this issue goes far enough. However, I do suspect he is basing his view upon the word “achievable” and I respect that. ~STMcC)
If our government were scrupulously faithful to the Constitution,we would not need to be especially concerned when a person who represents a philosophy different from our own takes political office. Our Constitution delegates relatively few tasks to the federal government.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 66]
Economic freedom is based on a simple moral rule: everyone has a right to his or her life and property, and no one has the right to deprive anyone of these things. To some extent, everyone accepts this principle. For instance, anyone going to his neighbor’s home and taking his money at gunpoint, regardless of all the wonderful, selfless things he promised to do with it, would be promptly arrested as a thief. But for some reason it is is considered morally acceptatble when government does that very thing. We have allowed government to operate according to its own set of moral rules. …
What if we stopped doing things we would consider morally outrageous if done by private individuals but that we consider perfectly all right when carried out by government in the name of “public policy”?
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 69 & 70]
Some Americans appear to believe that there would be no arts in America were it not for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), an institution created in 1965. They cannot imagine things being done any other way, even though they WERE done another way throughout our country’s existence, and throughout most of mankind’s history. … NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people populate both categories.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 75]
But if we want more economc freedom and a healthy and robust economy, serious inroads need to be made into federal spending. Otherwise, tax cuts will simply lead to more borrowing, more inflation, and the continued decline of the dollar. As I write, we are paying about $1.4 billion every day just for the interest on the national debt. Because our government refuses to live within its means, every single day we spend $1.4 billion and receive absolutely nothing in return.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 81]
Central economic planning has been as discredited as any idea can possibly be. But even though we point to our devotion to the free market, at the same time we centrally plan our monetary system, the very heart of the economy. Americans must reject the notion that one man, whether Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, or any other chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, can know what the proper money supply and interest rates ought to be. Only the market can determine that. Americans must learn this lesson if we want to avoid continuous and deeper recessions and to get the economy growing in a healthy and sustainable fashion.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 147]
What other policy for sheltering Americans from the collapse of the dollar is being advanced? Is there any, apart from comfortable delusions that the Federal Reserve, which is itself responsible for our financial mess, can be trusted to put everything right? For one thing, how can we be expected to place so much trust in a Federal Reserve System we’re not even allowed to audit? And even if the Fed chairman really possessed the singular genius our media and politicians regularly ascribe to him (no mattter who he is), what if things have reached a point at which the Fed simply cannot stop the collapse? What if economic law, which the Fed can no more defy than it can repeal the law of gravity, is about to hit the Fed and the American people like a tidal wave, before which little rate cuts here and there are like the tiny umbrella Wile E. Coyote puts over his head to protect himself from falling boulders?
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 155]
A federal Department of Education, for example, is an insult to the American people, who are more than capable of running their own schools without being looted to support a national education bureaucracy. We would get by just fine without it, as indeed Americans did for most of the twentieth century, a period when – by just coincidence? – the population was far better educated than it is now. In fact, given the Department of Education’s sorry record, if I truly opposed learning and knowledge I would propose tripling its budget.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 162]
We also need to begin to restore monetary freedom, which means that Americans should be free, if they wish, to engage in transactions and contracts denominated in gold and silver. It is essential that Americans be able to protect themselves in this way against any coming monetary disaster that would leave them holding valueless dollar bills. No one in politics or the media even talks about this issue, so you know it must be important.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 162]
You realize, of course, any book that manages to mention Wile E. Coyote in a chapter dedicated to an examination of economics is a book YOU HAVE GOT TO READ, right? Many more succinctly stated and plainly illustrated important political/social considerations are awaiting the person who picks up a copy of Doctor Ron Paul’s “THE REVOLUTION: A MANIFESTO.”
Unfortunately, however, Ron Paul will not be president of the United States, and regardless of which of the two S.O.Bamas get elected, the Black one or the White one, our next president will swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and then not only will he turn right around and uphold all of our current un-Constitutional, liberty-usurping Federal programs, but over the next four years, he will contribute to putting even more of them on the books! Oh, Johnny B. No Goode, and Barack B. Worse. Or vice versa. Whatever.
We may not know just yet which of these two major political party candidates will win the presidential election in November, but one thing, however, is certain: The more things O’Change, the more they’ll stay the McSame.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
Related Links:
Ron Paul on the Economy & Iraq War ("Must-Read!") :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html
Comparing Obama’s & McCain’s proposed policies:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/8603
Apples To Oranges?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/166-apples-to-oranges
More about the Council On Foreign Relations:
http://xtremelyun-pcandunrepentant.blogspot.com/2008/06/stop-being-useful-idiot.html
.
It’s just so dispiriting when I reflect on the fact that for the first time in quite awhile, the American People actually had a genuine opportunity to elect a man to the office of president who would have represented REAL “Change” and who would have attempted to make meaningful reforms in our seriously corrupted un-Constitutional form of government, but the voters let this golden opportunity slip away like a pickpocket at Oktoberfest. The man, the patriot, the doctor was “in” – Doctor RON PAUL – the moment was there – NOW! – all we lacked was the intelligence to “seize the day.” (And… uhm… well, when I say “we”, you know I don’t really mean “me”, don’t you? You know I mean “you”, right?)
Does anyone even recall that the United States Constitution proclaims itself to be “the supreme law of the land”? I have a great T-shirt that I bought via mail order and have worn for many years. It reads:
U. S. CONSTITUTION *
*Void where prohibited by law
The American People had a chance to nominate and then elect a candidate, an actual doctor, who had clearly diagnosed America’s ills (multiple forms of un-Constitutional collectivism), and who knew how to treat the diseased body (return to small, Constitutional government and free enterprise Capitalism – concepts that we haven’t even been within shouting distance of since prior to 1913), but for the six hundred and sixty-sixth trillionth and one half time, the American People were hoodwinked by the mainstream media, and instead of voting for authentic and much needed change, the Americans will once again go with the status quo: they will elect either Barack “Change-Rn’t-Really-Us” Obama or John “Old Man, Old Ways” McCain. Unless the unexpected happens, Obama will be our next president, but either way, we can expect a further slide into Orwellian Big Brother Socialism and our Brave New World. (“Brave New Nineteen Eighty-Four” y’all. Otherwise known as “2008 And Beyond.”)
Oh, boy howdy, what choices we have: you can have your brother’s cake and eat it too, with the radical high tax Socialism of “Mr. Change”, or you can vote for Neoconservative George W. McCain and get your Big Government Socialism shoved down your throat all the while you’re being lied to and told that it actually represents “smaller government Conservatism.” But if you’re no smarter than Republicans have shown themselves to be since long before the Ronald Reagan era, you won’t know the difference anyhow, so just swallow the socialistic s##t ‘n’ smile.
Yeah, the po’ American People have grown weary of Neocon Republicanism, so they’re going to vote “Change” this year and give the United States something that more closely resembles… uh… well, William Clintonism. Contemplating the 2008 presidential election and the response of the Americonned People, it brings to mind my most frequently quoted Bible verse: "As a dog returns to his own vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." (Proverbs 26:11). Please, Sir, may I have another serving of that “Change” that we’ve become so familiar with? Sure, it tastes terrible, but it’s the only flavor I can even imagine anymore.
The non-fool who has been living here in the U.S. for the last 25 years or so, would have noticed by now that it makes no difference whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat occupying the White House because either way, American Life continues to deteriorate. George Wallace once remarked that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the candidates offered by the Republican and Democrat parties, and he was, and remains, right about that. What we have here is a classic case of Dumb And Dumber. I’ll leave it to you to determine which is which. (Actually, the Dumb-O-Crats are dumber than the Repugnantcans but the difference is so inconsequential as to hardly be worth mentioning. There’s not a dollar’s worth of difference in their intelligence – which is really about a dime when factoring in the inflation since Wallace’s 15 minutes of time in the sun.)
In the cover story “Apples To Oranges?” of the July 21st issue of The New American magazine, writer Charles Scaliger accurately says in comparing the proposed policies of Obama to McCain that the presidential contenders have “been winnowed down to two polished posers who offer the American public, yet again, not a choice but an echo.” And I’ll add that even a few of the seeming differences are just a matter of “telling the necessary lies” in order to appease the targeted constituency. For example, those folks who really believe that Obama will recall the troops from Iraq are setting themselves up for a major disappointment: if he ever truly does pull them out of Iraq it will only be to establish them somewhere else in the Middle East. Whether you elect Obama or McCain, the soldiers are not coming home anytime soon, so just get used to the idea!
The most important but least understood point that Scaliger made in his article is the fact that since at least the 1930s, both major political parties and party candidates have been controlled by a semi-secret organization of (now) over 4,000 Elite Establishment Insiders known as the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (CFR). [If you think this is nonsense, click the link at the bottom of this Blog Bit.] The CFR was founded by a man who stated in print that he basically believed in “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” Scaliger tells us that of the 13 members of Obama’s Senior Working Group on National Security, 8 of them are CFR members, while one is a former member. “Mr. Change” also has CFR advisors on national finance and economics. As for John McCain, not only is McCain himself a CFR member, but he has at least 12 CFR members advising him. But here’s the real kicker: One of Obama’s foreign policy CFR advisors is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was not only Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy advisor, but he worked in a similar capacity for JOHN McCAIN during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign!
That is such a remarkably telling fact that I am going to repeat it for the benefit of my Dumb-O-Crat readers who traditionally excel more in emotional idealism than they do in realism and logic:
One of Obama’s foreign policy CFR advisors is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was not only Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy advisor, but he worked in a similar capacity for JOHN McCAIN during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign!
OK, now ask yourself, how much “Change” do you REALLY think you can expect by electing Barack Obama to the presidency? You’re being swindled again, boys and girls! It’s the same old story, the same old song and dance with all The Usual Suspects! Yeah, “Change” my a##! The candidates are employing all the usual advisors, but they are telling you to expect big Changes. Boy, do they think you’re stupid! (Are you?)
As if that wasn’t enough, it has been reported (and is almost assuredly true) that Obama was given a place at the table at the last Bilderberger meeting. In case you’re unaware, the Bilderbergers are another powerful international cabal of Elites very concerned about the well-being of you, the little guy in America….. WRONG!
If all of this is news to you, then you need to admit that you are simply an uneducated voter destined to vote for what you guess to be “the lesser of two evils.” However, maybe you should consider that given but two choices, even monkeys could pick the lesser of two evils 50% of the time, and regardless of whether or not we discount the ballots with hanging chads.
The American People like to promote the idea that they support the underdog, but this is mostly a lie; the American People, more than anything, love a “winner.” You disagree? See if you can count the number of new hats, jerseys, and bumper stickers that will suddenly manifest in celebration of the team that wins the next World Series, Super Bowl and NBA Championship. If every person who said that they’d like to have voted for Ron Paul but couldn’t because they thought he had no chance of winning, had in fact voted for him regardless, he might very well have made the Republican race quite interesting. Paul did extraordinarily well (“frighteningly well” to the Establishment Elites) in the preprimary straw polls, but when it came time to cast real votes, Americans chose to side with “pure politicians” instead, so long as they were convinced that their vote had a reasonably good chance of making a victor of their “lesser evil”, and making a winner of themselves by association in the process.
Meanwhile, I had reregistered from Independent to Repugnantcan solely in order to be allowed to vote for Ron Paul in the Arizona primary. (I have since reverted to an Independent, and will vote for Dr. Paul a second time in November’s general election by writing his name on my ballot; I refuse to vote for “evil”, lesser evil or otherwise – I value my vote much too highly to “waste” it like that. You want MY vote? You have to be worthy of MY vote.)
A friend of mine recently said in an e-mail that he figured he agreed with my theological positions 97.995% of the time. I responded: But that 97.995% is just a "rough estimate", right? Well, that's not bad. That's about the rate in which I agree with Ron Paul's positions.
About two months ago, I read Doctor Paul’s bestselling April 2008 book “THE REVOLUTION: A MANIFESTO” (don’t leave for the voting booth without it!) and I was pleasantly impressed by how well he – in just 170 small pages - was able to explain to a wide audience his positions on many important political issues. (In my opinion, it was a campaign blunder that this book wasn’t published much earlier.) Now I am going to post several excerpts from Ron Paul’s book “THE REVOLUTION” to illustrate what sort of AUTHENTIC CHANGES the American People could have hoped for if they had been smart enough to nominate and then elect The Good Doctor to the presidency:
Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us “change,” and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, “change” always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.
Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that’s the one option Americans are never permitted to hear.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page ix]
With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multitrillion-dollar promises of “free” goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in – this is not a misprint – 130 countries around the world. … Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion. … Truth is treason in the empire of lies.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page x]
Every election season America is presented with a series of false choices. Should we launch preemptive wars against this country or that one? Should every American neighborhood live under this social policy or that one? Should a third of our income be taken away by an income tax or a national sales tax? The shared assumptions behind these questions, on the other hand, are never cast in doubt, or even raised. And anyone who wants to ask different questions or who suggests that the questions as framed exclude attractive, humane alternatives, is ipso facto excluded from mainstream discussion.
And so every four years we are treated to the same tired, predictable routine: two candidates with few disagreements on fundamentals pretend that they represent dramatically different philosophies of government.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 1]
The war in Iraq was one of the most ill-considered, poorly planned, and just plain unnecessary military conflicts in American history, and I opposed it from the beginning. But the beginning I am speaking of was not 2002 or 2003. As early as 1997 and 1998, shortly after my return to Congress after a dozen years back in my medical practice, I spoke out against the actions of the Clinton administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our later policy was being set at that time. Many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton administration attack Iraq later demanded that the Bush administration attack Iraq, exploiting the tragedy of September 11 to bring about their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of that country.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 21]
I oppose all foreign aid on principle… Foreign aid is not only immoral, since it involves the forced transfer of wealth, but it is also counterproductive, as a ceaseless stream of scholarship continues to show. Foreign aid has been a disaster in Africa, delaying sound economic reforms and encouraging wastefulness and statism. … Now, while free trade should be embraced, foreign aid should be absolutely rejected. Constitutional, moral, and practical arguments compel such a view. Constitutional authorization for such programs is at best dubious. Morally, I cannot justify the violent seizure of property from Americans in order to redistribute that property to a foreign government – and usually one that is responsible for the appalling material condition of its people. Surely we can agree that Americans ought not to be doing forced labor on behalf of other regimes, and that is exactly what foreign aid is.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Pages 34 & 99]
We have had troops in Korea for over five and a half decades. We have had troops in Europe and Japan for about as long. How many years is enough? An American presence in these places was supposed to be temporary, persisting only during the military emergencies that were cited as justification for bringing them there. Milton Friedman was right: there is nothing so permanent as a “temporary” government program.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 37]
Americans have the right to defend themselves against attack; that is not at issue. But that is very different from launching a preemptive war against a country that had not attacked us and could not attack us, that lacked a navy and an air force, and whose military budget was a fraction of a percent of our own. A policy of overthrowing or destabilizing every regime our government dislikes is no strategy at all, unless our goal is international chaos and domestic impoverishment.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 39]
(NOTE: I personally would argue that very frequently, creating international chaos and domestic impoverishment is EXACTLY the goal of our government’s operations. A long story which I have briefly addressed elsewhere. ~STMcC)
According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, all powers not delegated to the federal government by the states (in Article 1, Section 8) and not prohibited to the states in the Constitution (in Article 1, Section 10) are reserved to the states or to the people.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 44]
One day I walked into an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section. It was actually an abortion by hysterotomy. The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds. At that time doctors were not especially sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room. The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn’t there. I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was. …
If we can be so callous as to refer to a growing child in a mother’s womb as a parasite, I fear for our country’s future all the more. …
To those who argue that we cannot allow the states to make decisions on abortion since some will make the wrong ones, I reply that that is an excellent argument for world government – for how can we allow individual COUNTRIES to decide on abortion or other moral issues, if some may make the wrong decisions? Yet the dangers of a world government surely speak for themselves.
Let us therefore adopt the constitutional position, one that is achievable and can yield good results but that shuns the utopian idea that all evil can be eradicated.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Pages 59-61]
(NOTE: Like Dr. Paul, I am strongly Pro-Life, yet I do not feel that his position on this issue goes far enough. However, I do suspect he is basing his view upon the word “achievable” and I respect that. ~STMcC)
If our government were scrupulously faithful to the Constitution,we would not need to be especially concerned when a person who represents a philosophy different from our own takes political office. Our Constitution delegates relatively few tasks to the federal government.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 66]
Economic freedom is based on a simple moral rule: everyone has a right to his or her life and property, and no one has the right to deprive anyone of these things. To some extent, everyone accepts this principle. For instance, anyone going to his neighbor’s home and taking his money at gunpoint, regardless of all the wonderful, selfless things he promised to do with it, would be promptly arrested as a thief. But for some reason it is is considered morally acceptatble when government does that very thing. We have allowed government to operate according to its own set of moral rules. …
What if we stopped doing things we would consider morally outrageous if done by private individuals but that we consider perfectly all right when carried out by government in the name of “public policy”?
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 69 & 70]
Some Americans appear to believe that there would be no arts in America were it not for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), an institution created in 1965. They cannot imagine things being done any other way, even though they WERE done another way throughout our country’s existence, and throughout most of mankind’s history. … NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people populate both categories.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 75]
But if we want more economc freedom and a healthy and robust economy, serious inroads need to be made into federal spending. Otherwise, tax cuts will simply lead to more borrowing, more inflation, and the continued decline of the dollar. As I write, we are paying about $1.4 billion every day just for the interest on the national debt. Because our government refuses to live within its means, every single day we spend $1.4 billion and receive absolutely nothing in return.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 81]
Central economic planning has been as discredited as any idea can possibly be. But even though we point to our devotion to the free market, at the same time we centrally plan our monetary system, the very heart of the economy. Americans must reject the notion that one man, whether Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, or any other chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, can know what the proper money supply and interest rates ought to be. Only the market can determine that. Americans must learn this lesson if we want to avoid continuous and deeper recessions and to get the economy growing in a healthy and sustainable fashion.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 147]
What other policy for sheltering Americans from the collapse of the dollar is being advanced? Is there any, apart from comfortable delusions that the Federal Reserve, which is itself responsible for our financial mess, can be trusted to put everything right? For one thing, how can we be expected to place so much trust in a Federal Reserve System we’re not even allowed to audit? And even if the Fed chairman really possessed the singular genius our media and politicians regularly ascribe to him (no mattter who he is), what if things have reached a point at which the Fed simply cannot stop the collapse? What if economic law, which the Fed can no more defy than it can repeal the law of gravity, is about to hit the Fed and the American people like a tidal wave, before which little rate cuts here and there are like the tiny umbrella Wile E. Coyote puts over his head to protect himself from falling boulders?
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 155]
A federal Department of Education, for example, is an insult to the American people, who are more than capable of running their own schools without being looted to support a national education bureaucracy. We would get by just fine without it, as indeed Americans did for most of the twentieth century, a period when – by just coincidence? – the population was far better educated than it is now. In fact, given the Department of Education’s sorry record, if I truly opposed learning and knowledge I would propose tripling its budget.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 162]
We also need to begin to restore monetary freedom, which means that Americans should be free, if they wish, to engage in transactions and contracts denominated in gold and silver. It is essential that Americans be able to protect themselves in this way against any coming monetary disaster that would leave them holding valueless dollar bills. No one in politics or the media even talks about this issue, so you know it must be important.
[-Ron Paul’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto”; Page 162]
You realize, of course, any book that manages to mention Wile E. Coyote in a chapter dedicated to an examination of economics is a book YOU HAVE GOT TO READ, right? Many more succinctly stated and plainly illustrated important political/social considerations are awaiting the person who picks up a copy of Doctor Ron Paul’s “THE REVOLUTION: A MANIFESTO.”
Unfortunately, however, Ron Paul will not be president of the United States, and regardless of which of the two S.O.Bamas get elected, the Black one or the White one, our next president will swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and then not only will he turn right around and uphold all of our current un-Constitutional, liberty-usurping Federal programs, but over the next four years, he will contribute to putting even more of them on the books! Oh, Johnny B. No Goode, and Barack B. Worse. Or vice versa. Whatever.
We may not know just yet which of these two major political party candidates will win the presidential election in November, but one thing, however, is certain: The more things O’Change, the more they’ll stay the McSame.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
Related Links:
Ron Paul on the Economy & Iraq War ("Must-Read!") :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html
Comparing Obama’s & McCain’s proposed policies:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/8603
Apples To Oranges?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/166-apples-to-oranges
More about the Council On Foreign Relations:
http://xtremelyun-pcandunrepentant.blogspot.com/2008/06/stop-being-useful-idiot.html
.
Monday, August 4, 2008
KEITH HERNANDEZ AND THE WATCHDOGS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
.
[From the STMcC archive; 2006, April.]
The Heat Index is a feature frequently found on page two of The Arizona Republic’s sports section. (Yes, THAT “Arizona Republic”: Phoenix’s major daily newspaper often referred to as “The Arizona Repugnant” or – my favorite – “The Daily Disappointment.”)
Very recently, while cleaning out an old Word File, I came across a letter I had written to the editor of The Daily Disappointment’s sports section. Although I have had a few of my letters previously printed in The Los Angeles Times and in our very own Daily Disappointment, in this instance, however, those liberal, politically correct weenies posing as men at the newspaper declined to print what I had submitted. I was about to delete this old composition from my computer file when it suddenly hit me that it might make a good entry in my XTREMELY UN-P.C. AND UNREPENTANT Blog.
The Keith Hernandez in question is indeed the same former all-star first baseman from the New York Mets and the same Keith Hernandez who, in 1992, appeared in an episode of Seinfeld in which he asked Jerry to help him move out of his apartment. So, without further ado, here is my unpublished letter to the editor of The Daily Disappointment’s sports section:
Dear Editor ~
This is in response to the article titled "EARTH TO KEITH: IT’S 2006, FOOL" which appeared in The Heat Index on Wednesday, April 26th, 2006.
During a recent New York Mets/San Diego Padres game, Mets broadcaster Keith Hernandez questioned why a female was in the Padres dugout. Hernandez thought this was inappropriate, and though it was later revealed that Kelly Calabrese was employed by the team as a massage therapist, Hernandez publicly said women "don't belong in the dugout."
The Mets organization reprimanded the broadcaster for his comments, which it had a right to do since he is hired to represent the team. But The Heat Index couldn't resist printing that Hernandez is a "fool" and an "idiot" for holding that opinion. This is America after all, and no place for personal opinions - particularly opinions so politically incorrect.
I think The Arizona Republic should see to it that such horrific and injurious displays of rebellious individual thought are squelched from now on. I believe that The Heat Index should be renamed “The Speech Police” and each week they could print all of the ideas and opinions that the American people are allowed to hold and express, and if we all conform to their sage reforms, then The Speech Police should feel no need to resort to name-calling in the future.
Let me point out, however, that likely a large number of people, afraid to suffer the penalty for transgressing political correctness, silently agree with Keith Hernandez. I can state unequivocally that if my Mother - who worked for several years in the 1960s for the Los Angeles Dodgers and the California Angels organizations - was with us still, she would say, "Good for you, Keith!"
Kelly Calabrese, the deeply offended massage therapist, later lamented that Hernandez had not only discredited her as a person, but discredited women. Will someone please inform that woman in the Padres dugout that “there's no crying in baseball!”
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
[From the STMcC archive; 2006, April.]
The Heat Index is a feature frequently found on page two of The Arizona Republic’s sports section. (Yes, THAT “Arizona Republic”: Phoenix’s major daily newspaper often referred to as “The Arizona Repugnant” or – my favorite – “The Daily Disappointment.”)
Very recently, while cleaning out an old Word File, I came across a letter I had written to the editor of The Daily Disappointment’s sports section. Although I have had a few of my letters previously printed in The Los Angeles Times and in our very own Daily Disappointment, in this instance, however, those liberal, politically correct weenies posing as men at the newspaper declined to print what I had submitted. I was about to delete this old composition from my computer file when it suddenly hit me that it might make a good entry in my XTREMELY UN-P.C. AND UNREPENTANT Blog.
The Keith Hernandez in question is indeed the same former all-star first baseman from the New York Mets and the same Keith Hernandez who, in 1992, appeared in an episode of Seinfeld in which he asked Jerry to help him move out of his apartment. So, without further ado, here is my unpublished letter to the editor of The Daily Disappointment’s sports section:
Dear Editor ~
This is in response to the article titled "EARTH TO KEITH: IT’S 2006, FOOL" which appeared in The Heat Index on Wednesday, April 26th, 2006.
During a recent New York Mets/San Diego Padres game, Mets broadcaster Keith Hernandez questioned why a female was in the Padres dugout. Hernandez thought this was inappropriate, and though it was later revealed that Kelly Calabrese was employed by the team as a massage therapist, Hernandez publicly said women "don't belong in the dugout."
The Mets organization reprimanded the broadcaster for his comments, which it had a right to do since he is hired to represent the team. But The Heat Index couldn't resist printing that Hernandez is a "fool" and an "idiot" for holding that opinion. This is America after all, and no place for personal opinions - particularly opinions so politically incorrect.
I think The Arizona Republic should see to it that such horrific and injurious displays of rebellious individual thought are squelched from now on. I believe that The Heat Index should be renamed “The Speech Police” and each week they could print all of the ideas and opinions that the American people are allowed to hold and express, and if we all conform to their sage reforms, then The Speech Police should feel no need to resort to name-calling in the future.
Let me point out, however, that likely a large number of people, afraid to suffer the penalty for transgressing political correctness, silently agree with Keith Hernandez. I can state unequivocally that if my Mother - who worked for several years in the 1960s for the Los Angeles Dodgers and the California Angels organizations - was with us still, she would say, "Good for you, Keith!"
Kelly Calabrese, the deeply offended massage therapist, later lamented that Hernandez had not only discredited her as a person, but discredited women. Will someone please inform that woman in the Padres dugout that “there's no crying in baseball!”
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
