Welcome

Welcome to our conservative and right way of thinking blog. We welcome your independent mind and spirit. We look forward to an enlightening and challenging dialogue and hopefully it will always be respectful and civil. Please chat with us consistently here or our main website and elevate the global and domestic dialogue. -Armstrong Williams

LIVE Chat!

LIVE STREAMING Of THE SHOW AT 4pm EST @ www.ArmstrongWilliams.com .. PLEASE!! Dont forget to Join in on the conversation, and call into the Radio show @ 4pm EST 1866-620-6620 & 803-733-5620 with all your Question & Comment's

Friday, May 30, 2008

If the Rules Don't Matter...

Five centuries ago, philosopher Thomas Hobbes described the State of Nature — a place with no rules or laws — as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Recognizing this fate, civilized societies have established rules to avoid such a description, but somehow today’s Democratic Party has failed to grasp the concept.

This Saturday, leading Democrats are meeting to decide the fate of Florida and Michigan. Ignoring the consequences of the states’ rule-breaking escapades, Florida and Michigan residents and Clinton supporters claim denying the states their delegates (a.k.a., following the rules) violates democratic ideals.

Frankly, the rules are the only ideals being violated in this situation. Well aware of the consequences, the elected leaders of Michigan and Florida made a rational, timely decision to move up their primaries, thereby forfeiting their delegates. They weren’t blindsided or duped or hoodwinked. They knew the consequences of their actions, and did it anyway.

Following through with the enforcement is simply the correct thing to do. I mean, we do it with any other broken rule. Think of it this way: It seems ludicrous to say giving someone a speeding ticket for breaking the speed limit denies them an inalienable right, but essentially that’s what Democratic voters are claiming. State residents have selected leaders that sped through the nomination — when caught it is only right that they have to pay the fine with the delegated currency: votes. But if rules don’t matter…

Although the states’ party leaders made the decision to “speed,” voters are unfairly blaming Clinton, Obama or Dean for the political uncertainty. Despite the joy it may bring some to blame these individuals, they aren’t culpable; they really had no part in the decision. But, hey, if rules don’t matter let’s blame all of them (and maybe global warming while we’re at it).

But beyond all this rule-breaking mantra, this is honestly just a terrible precedent to set. Let’s say the meeting goes as expected and half of the two states’ delegates are allowed to vote at the convention. Then allow me to make a recommendation. The Mt. Rushmore State needs to break the rules and move their primary in 2012. South Dakota is the last state to contribute its 15 delegates (just for comparison, that’s 4 percent of the total including Florida and Michigan). So, why not give up seven or eight of those delegates (2 percent of the total) and move their primaries to January? I mean, if the rules don’t really matter, why not?

Listen, there is a reason for rules, and their validation is only secured through enforcement. Hobbes explained years ago a society without rules is brutal and daunting. Rules help to establish justice, ensure tranquility, promote the general welfare … you know, all the “We the People” stuff. The party had a rule and it was broken. If this rule doesn’t matter, then what rule does?

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

X-Ray of Sen. Clinton's Soul

There is much you can psychologically analyze when you have direct access to the inner workings of one's soul. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) comment recently about Sen. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s assassination giving her reason to stay in the race is a rare and candid revelation of a desperate and Machiavellian candidate.

Please consider the fact that the imaginative senator from New York did not envision the possibility of assassination for herself and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), only for the American black senator from Illinois.

This may not have been a mere coincidence. Deep down, could she have been attempting to activate a code or signal for some crazy maniac to take Sen. Barack Obama (D) out? With a license to make June the decisive month of the campaign, by murderous means if necessary, has Sen. Clinton essentially put a price on Obama's head?

Furthermore, when the New York senator informs us that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) has been weighing heavily on her mind recently, I beg of you to believe her. Yet you may be shocked to truly understand the nature of her thoughts about the ailing icon, and thus why they weigh so heavily. Is it possible that her bitterness over the endorsement of Sen. Obama has burdened Clinton with feelings of revenge and antipathy for the 76-year-old Massachusetts liberal icon? Is she staggered by the reality that Old Teddy won't be campaigning against her in the near future, and may not appear with Sen. Obama between now and the November election?

Isn't it fair game to suggest that the senator's comments towards Sen. Obama indicates that she's hopeful fate finally hands her the prize that she and her husband Bill feel they are entitled to receive?

Ahhhhh, those Clintons — just when you think they have scraped the gutter clean, they always find a way to dredge up yet more muck. She and her minions have attempted to excuse this latest foray into the depths as a mental error, made by an exhausted sexagenarian in the blinding fog of war; but this was no mental lapse at all. This was no morally ambiguous moment. What you have witnessed, ladies and gentlemen, are the inner workings of a dark and lost soul.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Personal Responsibility and Healthcare

Although clinical preventive health is equally important to personal health, just 14 percent of voters identified physicals and screenings as the most important preventive healthcare practice. “We know that preventive services such as mammograms, colonoscopies and simple dental exams are vital tools in the fight against serious disease,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) recently stated. “We now have to act on this knowledge; procrastination costs lives and fuels the high cost of healthcare.”

If Congress wants to help on the issue, they need to shift themes in the ongoing debate. Recently, prominent healthcare professionals and senior congressional staff from both sides of the aisle were brought together to discuss current preventive health legislation. The Politics of Prevention forum hosted folks such as renowned chronic disease expert Dr. Ken Thorpe, along with a bipartisan, pioneering group of senators and House members leading the charge on this effort. Those are the steps Washington should now be taking to build the bridges for action.

Surely the government can help by producing incentives and information about preventive healthcare, but Americans also need to stop relying solely on Uncle Sam to improve their health — it's time for citizens to do their part as well.

You can bet that no one voluntarily wants to pay more taxes, but everyone wants to create a healthier America. And taking the personal and clinical initiatives to avoid disease altogether can satisfy both wants. The right discussion has finally begun on the Hill. But even if proper congressional action is taken, Americans need to take some of their own personal responsibility to see it through.

Personal Politics Aside: Who is the best qualified to lead this country?

Friday, May 23, 2008

House GOP & NRCC = Not Really Creating Change

Change, verb
1. To make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of something different from what it is or from what it would be if left untouched.

Republicans have lost the past three special elections because they appeared resistant to the concept of change. But finally, after being hit upside the head by the voters, Republican leaders this month unveiled a new and improved conference message: “Change you can believe in.” But the sort of change House Republicans this week have peddled may have me longing for the bygone days of Warren Harding …

This week’s public embarrassment for the party was the farm bill. Notwithstanding the fact that scores of House GOPers actually supported hundreds of billions in shameless, needless pork for an ever-burgeoning corporate monolith the first time this bill passed, they’re still at the trough.

In a rare display of fiscal discipline, President Bush himself attempted to push a change in frivolous government spending by vetoing the pork-filled farm bill. Unfortunately, 100 House Republicans didn’t get the “Change you can believe in” memo. Instead they voted to flippantly spend over $307 billion — and for what? In reality, a “Get me reelected” bill masked by the word “farm.” After all, two-thirds of the bill doesn’t even pertain to the agricultural industry.

In another bone-headed move, the bill removes some of the federal funding for crop insurance — the money farmers truly want and can use to improve their businesses — and replaces it with money for welfare programs, urban initiatives, and home-district hand-outs.

Now I’m just guessing here, but an increase of spending is not the type of change Americans were looking for. Nonetheless, Republicans have joined the Democrats in excessively spending taxpayer dollars. I’m not sure why the red-state party seems so afraid to stand up for what it believes in — but its refusal to stand up for good old-fashioned belt-tightening — real change, by the way — will leave it walking in the legislative wilderness for 40 years or longer. Maybe Republicans should actually look up the word “change” and commit to it before they promise it to the American people. After all, cutting government spending would truly make the future course of America something different from what it is or what it could be.

The Gap Between McCain & Obama

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Blame Hillaryism

Bill Clinton’s odds of becoming the First Gentleman continue to dwindle this week, even as his wife opens yet another new shameless front in the campaign.
Last night, she grabbed the kitchen sink of sexism and threw that at Obama. HRC is clearly not thinking of how her late-primary actions are tainting her future political prospects. Blaming her poor performances on one more “ism” simply destroys party morale and denies reality. I think it’s time to acknowledge the reality and end this fool’s errand. She has no one to blame but her own brand of Hillaryism — a take-no-prisoners mentality where the end (the nomination) will ultimately justify the means, and they’ll pick up the pieces later.
Listen, Obama will be the Democratic nominee. This isn’t because America is not ready to support a woman for the White House. It’s not because America is too idealistic towards Obama. It’s because Democrats in America don’t want Hillaryism to extend any further! They’re tired of the scorched-earth politics that she has come to embody, and even though his liberal policies are conventional and well-known, Obama’s unconventional approach is appealing to the masses. As such they have pledged Sen. Obama over half of the total amount of delegates (sorry, Michigan and Florida — you still don’t count).
Now that Obamaism has plagued the nation, what is a continuation of this race going to do for Hillary?
Strain the fiscal energy of her contributors. Check. (something I don’t mind seeing, by the way.)
Damage the Democratic Party to ill repair. Check.
Lose respect from the party, thereby compromising a leadership role for her senatorial career. Check.
I’m not sure why I think pragmatism will hit Hillary this round of primaries, but maybe it will now that her own career is severely threatened. Voters have disregarded Hillary’s “ism” claims thus far, and her failure to realize this has cost her the nomination and is now threatening her senatorial career. It’s time for Hillary to bow out and chalk it up to Hillaryism.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The Limits of Diplomacy

In 2004 a Dutch filmmaker named Theo Van Gogh helped Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament, produce a 10-minute film about the oppression of women in Muslim communities. Ali, an immigrant from Somalia, was herself a Muslim and had done a number of scholarly papers on the subject; the film was a continuation of that project. Because of the film, fatwas were issued calling for the assassination of Van Gogh and Ali. Ali was hounded out of parliament and evicted from her apartment because her neighbors felt her presence put them in danger.
On Nov. 4, 2004, Theo Van Gogh was bicycling to work when Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-born son of Moroccan immigrants, shot him. The first shot did not kill Van Gogh. He pleaded with his assailant: "Don't do it! Don't do it! Mercy! Mercy! He said: "Surely we can talk about this:" Mr. Bouyeri (who at the time was living on welfare payments from the Dutch government) had a response. He fired 20 additional shots into Van Gogh's body, stabbed him several times, and slit his throat. Then he pinned a five-page letter to his chest with the knife. The letter was addressed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and foretold the destruction of America, Europe and the Netherlands.
Sen. Barack Obama (and former president Jimmy Carter) subscribes to the Western elite's most unshakeable article of faith — the belief in peace and reconciliation through dialogue. He has said diplomacy is the way to solve the problem of terrorism and that he will meet with the leaders of states that sponsor terrorism without preconditions. But Europeans have been trying peace and reconciliation for generations. It is not working.
Why does he present this failed strategy as a change we should embrace? All this strategy has done for Europe is convince the terrorists that Westerners are doormats who will participate in the destruction of their own countries. As John Bolton has noted, diplomacy is a tool, not a strategy. Surrender is not an option. We are fighting for our lives and the continuance of Western civilization. Should we elect a president whose response to the most serious threat of our time is appeasement?

Monday, May 19, 2008

Letter to Sen. Barack Obama

Senator, this is in response to your action regarding President Bush’s speech at the Knesset, especially his comments concerning appeasement. It was you who originally came up with the idea of meeting with these rogue leaders.
If engagement means keeping our foot on Iran’s throat and increasing the pressure, providing an opportunity for them to capitulate and meet the demands of the international community, that’s the right direction. Another type of engagement is to let us just sit down and chat, make nice, be friends, and have a photo op, but that just lends credibility to a group, deemed terrorists, that has killed more Americans than anyone but al Qaeda. Hezbollah just carried out a coup in Lebanon last week, effectively exporting the Iranian revolution to Lebanon. This is who they are.
Why would you lend credibility to a country that pursues nuclear weapons, denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe a country off the map, funds and trains terrorists and sends weapons to Iraq to kill American soldiers?
A group that supports the Taliban in Afghanistan and finances Hamas in their terrorist war for the destruction of Israel is not a group to which one ought to lend credibility. Hamas’s charter is “Israel will exist until Islam destroys it.” If you’re having a conversation with these fanatics, who want to turn the clock back to the 11th century, when fundamentalist Islam dominated the world, you only make them seem more legitimate.
You must operate from a position of leverage. Economic sanctions are good and are beginning to have an effect, but much more is needed: Cutting off Iran’s ability to import gasoline is an excellent place to start. They import 40 percent of their gasoline or fine petroleum products, leaving them vulnerable to international sanctions. Such strong measures help create the necessary leverage, including the credible threat of all options remaining on the table, which creates the circumstances to capitulate and conform with the U.N. Security Council’s three-time demand that they end illicit nuclear pursuits.

Black Men Can Wait

Just one year ago, pundits like myself were speculating about how in the world Republicans would be able to cope with the racial subtexts that haunt them every presidential election cycle — that awkwardness of appealing to minority voters and visiting NAACP candidate forums, the mass exodus of Latinos from the party due to failed immigration policies; the list went on … Yet here we stand, not ruminating about McCain being "too white" for this color-wheel country, but wondering instead if Barack can get past the argument that black preachers in black churches say the darnedest things.
I have to believe that the Obama campaign longs for the days where they could play the race card on their opponents, or, better still, rise above the veiled innuendo and make Bill Clinton look foolish in the process. But those days are gone, and identity politics are back in full effect.
The sad irony here is that Barack Obama is not the biggest perpetrator of this phenomenon. Rather, it's Sen. Clinton who peddles this issue the hardest, for she stands to gain the most from its success. While hers is a brand of identity politics far more subtle, you hear it in her speeches out on the hustings — the talk of how, for too long, a woman's place was in the kitchen. For too long, the identity politics of the 20th century dictated that sisters should bide their time; and the Oval Office was a room they could only hope to clean, never govern from. "Those days are over," she says triumphantly.
But are they? What about the same opportunities for the political advancement of the black man? Does he not count this election cycle? Should he not count? You see, to agree with the Hillary camp, to accept her premise that this is the Year of the Woman, you must acknowledge the converse of that argument: Black men can wait.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

A Budget? Let’s Fudge It

The easiest thing to do in Washington is to increase spending. (The second easiest thing is to increase taxes, but we’ll talk about that later …) Until a few years ago, the one stopgap measure to hold lawmakers in line on spending was a budget — a blueprint of priorities that drew the line in the sand in the name of the American taxpayer. But let’s be honest, the Republican majority in the late ’90s sort of ruined all that. Faced with a seminal moment of truth to do the right thing and restore fiscal discipline once they resumed the majority, Democrats, too, are withering like prepubescents at a Miley Cyrus concert.
The latest profile in buffoonery was on display last week, when Democratic Senate leaders reported the budget resolution may be pushed back again. Let’s not forget that federal law stipulates a budget must be resolved by March. There must have been a good reason to postpone resolution of a $2 trillion budget, right? Sure … Congress wanted to first spend more through the war supplemental. Now, I’m not saying we should nix funding for the war. But how about actually following the playbook that families practice every day — know how much you have and don’t spend more than that!
When was the last time you heard a lawmaker say, “I’m sorry, we can’t do this. It just isn’t in the budget”? Try never. Their fear of losing reelection outweighs any attempt to restrict themselves from the pleasure of spending. Recently, it’s gotten so political Congress can’t even pass the words that statutorily require them to have something on paper that resembles a budget. And to think, these guys want to help everyday Americans with their struggles? If we can’t trust them to spend within their means, how can we expect them to have any credibility on the bills they pass for us?!
I’m starting to sound like a populist, so I’ll get off my soapbox, but c’mon folks, if setting a budget means we have to refuse funding for some items, no matter how noble the constituency, then so be it! Unfortunately, the political atmosphere does not lend itself to such self-restraint. Members of Congress find it difficult to say no to funding just in case that would transfer to a respective “no” on the ballot. As such, creating a budget in the aftermath of funding may have temporary political benefits for lawmakers, but it poses significant problems for us who have to cough up the taxes to pay for their lack of leadership.

Monday, May 5, 2008

Obama's and Reagan's Common Ground

Surprisingly, I have many friends and colleagues who see in Barack Obama shades of Ronald Reagan.
They reason thus: Reagan was much more conservative than the electorate thought, but he had such a felicitous way of expressing himself, the voters were beguiled. Once in office, he moved the country to the right. Similarly, Barack Obama is much more liberal than he appears, but he has such energy, intellect and eloquence, voters are beguiled. Once in office, he will move the country to the left. Some will celebrate that leftward tilt; others will just shrug and say that's the way politics works.
Obama will doubtless be nominated for the presidency and it is definitely possible that he will be elected. Although I would like to celebrate that achievement, the thought of it fills me with foreboding.
Many of the people who support Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) do so because they think his election will make it easier for America to regain the world's esteem. I have no doubt that world leaders will like Sen. Obama. If you define the world as Old Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain), Scandinavia and others of that ilk, they will love Sen. Obama. Why not? He is one of them. He will insist on political correctness, openness, tolerance, the equality of all cultures, and the right of all people not to be offended — except white people, of course. Political correctness does not protect them.
People say they want change and I believe they will get it. America will rush to join Europe's suicide pact and they will like us very well when we drink the Kool-Aid and die.

Friday, May 2, 2008

Will Democrats Have a Nominee in June?

With only seven states and 300 super delegates left, the “Screamer” Howard Dean thinks Democrats might be able to finally make a decision on their official nominee by June. The primaries are over by the beginning of summer, but the illusion of a small-d democratic party still needs time for the VIP’s to make up their minds. I find this whole process as hysterical as Howard’s “Yeaaaaaaaaaaarrrggg!!” Just a few months ago the party was already planning the second floor décor of the White House, and now they have become so divided that their future in the West Wing is more uncertain than ever. What happened?

For one thing, the voters are split. Although many individuals are decided between Sens. Obama or Clinton, the divide is virtually even. Sure, Sen. Obama is leading in North Carolina, but Sen. Clinton has a chance to win Indiana. Each time the party seems close to choosing a nominee, the tides change. After all, Sen. Clinton was almost out of mathematical contention… then she won Pennsylvania and gained the much needed momentum to at least keep her PR campaign alive that somehow she can pull this thing off.

Besides voter divisions, the super delegates are holding out in order to figure their own political gain into the equation properly. Beware the super delegate who tells you he or she wants this process over more than anyone; and that they would just as soon have remained irrelevant throughout this process. Poppycock! They love the attention! Do you think these back-benchers don’t like the idea of an Oprah or former president calling and wooing them? (For the life of me, I don’t know why Clinton ever started making proffers with a guy named Ickes…) If they could milk this attention through 2012, they’d find a way. The super delegates claim they only want what’s best for the party; however they don’t seem to actually be doing that. The lack of a resolution has led to Sen. McCain saving scarce dollars, Sens. Obama and Clinton revealing each others’ inadequacies, and a severely divided party that is nearing damage beyond repair, whether they admit it or not.

Chairman Dean wants the party to decide by June, but just yesterday he gave the super delegates another window by suggesting more publicly that sometime before the convention in August would be fine, as well. Democrat voters will have cast their ballots, and the popular vote will be decided, but what about the super delegates? They were created in the first place to use their expertise to benefit the party, but thus far their indecision has caused harmful divisions that may cost the party the presidency. A decision by June will give them an extra 2.5 months to unite the segregated party – will it happen or will politics just get in the way?

Suicide or Murder?

Deborah Palfrey better known as the "the D.C. Madam" according to reports hanged herself in a storage shed behind her mother's mobile home in a small Gulf Coast city in Tarpon Springs, Fla. Who can ever forget the fear and rumblings in our fair city of Washington, D.C when after Palfrey's indictment she gave volumes of her phone records to ABC news and posted them on the Internet, resulting in public identification of some prominent and powerful clients with family's and careers that were threatened to be destroyed. Remember Palfrey's former employee Brandy Britton, a former college professor who hanged herself in her Howard County home in January 2007 shortly before her scheduled trial on prostitution charges. Is this all coincidental or do we have the making of another Marilyn Monroe conspiracy developing. Were there those among the power elite who found it necessary to find a way to eliminate both women? What If these cult of women who knew the names of those that frequent their enterprise decided to tell all? Obviously their revelation would send shock waves and humiliation through the corridors of power in the political, financial, entertainment and media world.
Should we believe Palfrey when she said, "I sure heck am not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone, you know, four to eight years," ABC quoted her as saying recently. Can we reason that this insight from her makes it clear that she was suicidal. Do we trust her mother when she makes it clear that her daughter had "no indication" to end her life and that she did not appear anguished "to the point of committing suicide."
Was this suicide or murder? Should we investigate further?

Jeremiah's legacy

Rev. Jerimiah Wright is on his worldwide media tour setting the record straight about his strong patriotism and love for this country. Many people including myself felt the reverend acquitted himself well on PBS with Moyer's and his NAACP speech, broadcast live on Fox news. Everyone has an opinion about the Rev. and how he has been unfairly maligned through the media lenses, while other's are more convinced than ever that Wright is a dangerous and frightening human being. Regardless of what the opinion's of the good Rev. are, no matter where he goes and how well he states his case, he does a huge disservice to the Obama bid for the presidency. Rev. Wright's ego is getting the better of him now and his blindness to the impact on his fellow parishioner campaign is immeasurable and will linger until the November elections. If Wright truly cared about Senator Obama and his bid for the presidency he would just disappear from the radar screen until January 09. What Rev. Wright has yet to realize is that his legacy in this country and globally will be that he and he alone is why Senator Barack Obama wasn't elected president of these United States. If that's the footnote he strives for in history, than this fellow pundit must say to him and his supporters job well done. In other words shut up and quietly disappear now or completely destroy what remain of any chance for Obama to occupy the White house. What's tragic to this historical moment in our history is that the Senator would have become President.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Sample Blog from May 2007

I recently read CBS correspondent Byron Pitts’s admission that he was found to be “functionally illiterate” when he was 12 years old. This propelled me to write about something dear to my heart: education. I have always emphasized that everyone should get a good education and become financially secure. While this journey may be easy for some, it can be more difficult for others.
Statistics, in America’s capital, show that a majority of fourth- and eighth-graders are failing to read or do math at basic levels. It is estimated that four in five schools are not meeting achievement goals under the federal No Child Left Behind law and only 43 percent of students graduate from high school in five years. Low voter turnout for school board elections and sagging test scores have generated a movement for mayors to take control of schools in their respective cities.
One must ask: Are the mayors equipped to take on the communities, the high turnover rates associated with school boards and the superintendents who report to them? Is this takeover contributing to our children’s future?
Of course, we must be cognizant that not all of the blame falls squarely on our school system. Parents must take on some of the responsibility in mentoring their children and preparing them for the future.
Byron stated that he is not angry about the school system failing him. However, he did have advocates and a parent who realized he had a fine analytical mind but poor training. But he is one in a million. He succeeded against all odds. How many others without parental support or advisers have slipped through the cracks and encountered teachers who have failed them without giving them a chance to succeed?