The American Response to the Jasmine Spring

Many of you have appreciated, and a few have debated, my assertion that Bush's single most important strategic move was the push for seeding democracy around the Muslim world. Even if you still disagree with me, you must admit that the scene of entire countries rising up to confront dictators takes one's breath away. This Winter and Spring is every bit the sea-change that 1989 and 90 were for the Iron Curtain. What is distressing is the West's lukewarm support for self-determination.

I could be verbose and spend many lines on what North American, Europe, Japan, and Korea need to do. I'll keep it brief. That the democracies are not at minimum vocally, loudly, joyously proclaiming the advent of self-determination for Arab peoples is an outrage. That the democratic nations have not publicly called for the ouster of these tyrants, is unconscionable.

Whether you like Mr. Bush or not, any American should be glued to the TV or Al Jazeera as the new potential democracies go through the pangs of labor. Democracies must midwife these new nations at this dangerous and crucial time. We may be on the verge of realizing a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Muslim block.

This block is the antidote at the strategic and ideological level against the tyranny of Al Qeada and kleptocrats – from the Magreb to the Sulu Sea. To stand idly by is immoral in the extreme.

If democratic nations believe their own preaching, why are the West's and Japan's capitals largely silent? This is our best, free hope for regional peace and a powerful counter-balance to the Al Qaeda ideology. We must move strongly morally and materially soon to assist the people who seek democracy or we will buy [a form of] peace with the blood of Americans, Germans, Italians, and Britain's sons and daughters. Again.

How many times do we have to go to the well of mild, strong, patriotic Moms and Dads and ask them to give up their sons and daughters to fight in a land they don't love? This time we may achieve our goals by merely exporting our best - the idea of law, rights, and equality. I know our people will line up at MEPS* to enlist if called upon. But this time we do not need that. We need a crystal clear clarion voice saying, “There is only one way to peace and success. The path is freedom for any and all, natural rights regardless of creed or caste, and death for all tyrants.”

My friends, we redneck Southerners may spit grits every time you talk to us. But we do have a motivational flag that reads “Sic Semper Tyrannus,” with Liberty's foot on a dead corpse's throat. We Southerners are nothing if not graphic.

Let's make it happen, Cap'n!

(Disclaimer: Contrary to what many may believe, I am not a Bush apologist. But I can read history and news dispassionately. The Redneck Templar knows it will be his class and people who will go to settle this on dusty streets and mountaintops if not settled by the rebels in the streets of Tunis, Libya, and Egypt. Only the dead know peace.)

*For you non-olive drab wearing people, MEPS equals “military entrance processing station.”

Bush’s Strategic Legacy Is Unfolding Now


Bush did a poor job of articulating a brilliant and lasting strategic plan to win the Islamic world’s ideological civil war. This civil war is at the heart of Al Qaeda’s push to turn all to conservative Islam. Bush’s strategy, simply put, was to till the ground to make it possible for native anti-radical and anti-despot movements to flower across the Islamic world. The events in Tunisia, Yemen, and most importantly Egypt, are the flowering of the Bush doctrine of democratization across the Muslim world. The Iraq War otwas the kinetic showplace for US and Western power, in raw might and ideas. The Iraq War and it’s subsequent transition to indigenous rule, several successful local and national elections, and a rocky, yet democratic transition to purely civilian government gives hope to all disaffected moderates and moderns within the entire span of the Muslim world.

As I have written in the past, the successes in Iraq, while strategic, yes, are also moral victories for the US and for the Arab world. That regular, democratic, yet painful transitions of government occurred in the seat of one of the more powerful caliphates in history is monumental. It’s probable that most Westerns may not understand the import of Baghdad turning to democracy, albeit with great tremors in Iraqi society. And why would there not be great upheaval in this transition? Iraq has known one party, one man, and one set of fascist principles for decades. There is no national memory of representative rule. The same holds true for most of the Arab world, and writ large, the Muslim world.

G.W. Bush rather quietly articulated a clash of civilizations argument after 9/11. He also postulated a solution which went rather unnoticed by his enemies and friends. That solution was the ideological struggle between democracy and pluralism versus the autocracy of despots or the despotism of Usama bin Laden. He put this idea forward. Arabs listened and silently waited for the tidal wave of chaos and positive movement that would inevitably occur with the US victory in Iraq. That wave is breaking this week on the shores of three countries.

That Bush could win, and win big militarily in Iraq, in the seat of the Abbasid Caliphate, in the heart of the ancient Mesopotamia, at the birthplace of agriculture, indeed of culture, at the throne of Nebuchadnezzar, and the home of the greatest medieval library in history is massively important. That Bush could also win the hearts of the Sunnis, turn them from perpetual enemies and instigators into the very instrument of democratic change, is earth-shattering. If it could happen in Iraq, where Shia and Sunni would gladly spill each others’ blood for decades, it could happen here: Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, maybe even Lebanon.

Mr. Bush articulated a brilliant strategic move, which harkened back to the Cold War democratic opposition to communist tragedy and soul-eating hopelessness of the Warsaw Pact. He took a page from Reagan and retooled it for the radical Islamic threat. He framed the fight correctly as one of ideas. Iraq just showed the entire world that US ideas are not trite, or dead, or outworn, or post modern - whatever that means. It showed the world that self determination is a natural law of all peoples no matter their religion, their ethnicity, or their warlike past. His seeds are no growing. The question still outstanding is: “What will the peoples of the Muslim Middle East do with the opportunity in front of them?” The Three Maji themselves cannot foretell this.

The Unchanging Political Quagmire in US Politics: How the Rebirth of Conservatism is a Myth

　

The conventional media is touting the emergence of a new generation of conservatives stemming from the debacle of the 2008 elections for so-called conservatives. This is nothing short of nonsense and misses the boat for genuine change and economic growth in the near term and for generations. The myopic focus on emergent Republican leaders is misplaced. The true path to prosperity is along Reaganite concepts all but lost on today’s conservatives. The real opportunity is for a freedom, libertarian, classical liberal movement to emerge melding the rightists, unaligned, business elite, and libertarians into a coalition to break the death grip the 2-party system has on US politics.

Republicans are excited about the emergence of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman, whose photogenic outlier panache is energizing the right. I predict, if these women, and others like them, make it to the national stage, they will fall into the typical Republican, status quo performance. And what is the right’s status quo now? Since the retirement of Reagan, the Democrats have been running towards socialism after a short flirt with the center under W. J. Clinton. While the Dems are sprinting under B. H. Obama towards socialism at this very moment, the Republicans are merely walking leisurely in that same direction. One wouldn’t want to soil one’s country club suit now, would one?

If you don’t believe me, please cite more than two or three proofs to challenge my thesis. I’ll show you 8 years of G.W. Bush’s massive increase in government spending. I’ll show you the erosion of individual rights as the nanny state grows, peeking to everything from video tape rentals to how you plant your farm. I’ll point to the creation of the behemoth Dept. of Homeland Security, to the Federalizing of airport security, to the choosing of even agricultural winners and losers (corn for ethanol ring a bell?). I’ll point to a border that is unsecurable, or so they say. I’ll point to a military that cannot go to war without massive private sector contractors to do nearly everything for it. If you are a conservative, this paragraph should burn you up. Under Republicans, our government will not perform the duties expressly reserved to it in the Constitution (that is…to enforce the borders and territorial integrity and to fight foreign wars with a uniformed military force). But they will usurp the rights of business. Remember TARP, GM bailout, Chrysler bailout, Lehman, shall I go on? These programs were started under the supposedly dream child of the right, Mr. Bush. Let’s be honest with ourselves, most of the big government moves of the last 20 years were initiated under the aegis of the “branded” right. Is the brand label correct?

I say branded because I firmly believe the Republican party is merely a brand, like J. Crew or Coke. They have so little substance to call themselves classical liberals or even rightists. So they embrace anti-abortion and family values every four years. I happen to agree with these ideas. But they also embrace massive government intervention in nearly everything. Is that action conservative?

I emphatically state that the so-called right, are in fact true conservatives. I use this term pejoratively. Maybe we should use the term Tory - a label which should be abhorrent to Americans. I’ll be a little more radical by stating that the Dems are nothing more than slightly more spendthrift conservatives. Our conservatives are characterized by the desire to preserve (conserve, maybe?) the status quo, as an alternative to the unknown, innovative, or chaotic nature of man and nations. Maybe we should move to Tory.

Mrs. Palin and Bachman are interesting only in that they are attractive, front women for a trite movement whose main goal is to preserve a system which keeps them in power. They are a different face for the same old, pasty, white shell game that’s always been played in DC and on your TVs. Pollsters in the US accurately point out that after 8 years of either party in power, the nation votes it out simply as punishment for real or alleged wrongs. Is that choice? Or is it just knee-jerk? The two parties are really good at only one thing - getting elected. After that they both do the same thing.

I ask you where are the true rugged individualist Americans today? Where is that frontier character? Where is the strong man or woman standing up against the elements and communalists and forging their own way in life? As Mr. Obama desperately seeks to usher in Euro-style socialism (interestingly enough at the same time the Germans and even the French are reducing the social nets on the Continent), the real prescription for near-term financial success, and long-term growth and opportunity creation lie in an alternative path.

That prescription is:

1. Radical reduction in the size and scope of Federal power immediately.

2. Rapid devolving of power, tax dollars, and responsibility for many Federal tasks to the States.

3. Implementation of a flat tax, or a smaller, fairer tax shared by all earners, with very few exceptions.

4. Rapid exit of the Federal government from investments in private business.

5. Deregulation of critical industries such as energy exploration, transportation, technology.

6. Reduction, and eventual elimination of farm subsidies.

7. Reduction in capital gains taxes (to attract and keep investment dollars in the US).

8. Enforcement of the borders, with implementation of simple, traceable worker programs.

9. Tax credits for expanding businesses, new hiring.

10. Increase in trust busting by Federal government in the mode of Theodore Roosevelt.

11. Federal spending limited to the strict interpretation of the Constitution: military, border protection, encouragement of interstate commerce, national criminal prosecution, the fostering of free markets and free flow of capital.

These ideas are the only method for fostering private wealth, which will, in turn, create more tax revenue to retire the Federal deficit, make good on promises to retirees, and provide some safety net for the truly indigent. All other powers and functions should be devolved to the States and to the people and their own industry. Mr. Clinton, receiving the benefits of the implementation of some of these ideas under Mr. Reagan, was easily able to balance the Federal budget, payoff debts, and provide a better social net by doing exactly what is called for in this list. Mr. Clinton devolved the power to care for the poor to States, who know better how to do this. He also attained the highest tax income for the Feds in history. This occurred only because business and personal income were advancing markedly as new wealth was created by new industry. Government will not create jobs, only industry creates wealth and jobs.

Until a new coalition of free marketeers and classical liberals join ranks, we will be held hostage by the two-party system, who merely trade marbles on the same sand lot each cycle. While both sides debate whether there even is a free market solution to our ills, the global free market is forcing the issue to a head. China, India, Brazil, and even Europe are making massive plays to be the suppliers of the next century while US society fights over the reins of a declining turnip cart.

When we go broke, the niceties of debate will be overtaken by events and the free market will assert itself without either Democratic or Republican agreement. Now is the time to realign our society for prosperity. The main way to do this is to devolve power to the people, give them their money back and let them choose how and where to spend it. I have yet to hear Mrs. Palin or Bachman call for this devolving of power and money to the people. If they did, they’d have no bargaining chips. Those chips are your cash, my friends.

Government As Savior

One of the more disturbing aspects of the current rampage of government intervention in business is the insinuation that government will, or even can, create jobs and financial security for Americans.

Redneck Templar is very disturbed at this development for at least three reasons. First, government consumes and creates nothing. Second, government is the least efficient distributor of wealth and benefit in history. And lastly, Redneck Templar’s own experiences working as a minion for government types shows the absolute insanity of this idea in practice.

First, let’s be honest with each other. Outside of specialized military gear and some nuclear materials, the US government actually produces nothing. Let me correct myself. The US government produces reams of rulings, laws, and regulations that inhibit citizens and business. But they produce nothing of tangible benefit for the nation. Yes, you could ague that government created the Internet and some other sea-changing technologies. But the Internet was a hobbled telegraph system until free-market business got hold of it and made it useful. I have no issue with government performing basic science research. Actually I’d prefer government to fund other, more efficient, organizations like colleges and companies, to perform research.

Government merely consumes the wealth of actual working citizens: the lawyers, the Walmart greeters, the welders, and the venture capitalists. They take from people who actually produce a good or deliver a service to other private entities who need it. Government then wastes most of what they get under the rubric of “policy,” “rule-making,” and the meeting of their own regulations. So tell me Mrs. Corner Beauty Shop owner, what is your policy on global warming? I have a sneaking suspicion she will answer, “My policy is to make enough cash this week to cover salaries, rent, and taxes. Maybe there will be enough left over to actually make a downpayment on a cheeseburger.”

The sad reality is that government makes nearly nothing, nothing that an average joe citizen can use. It merely consumes the wealth of working people. No one in government makes, sells, or delivers a good or service. Don’t try to say DMV employees do!

Secondly, while industry has wringed every minor inefficiency out of delivering goods and services, government purposely creates layers of managers and managers of managers to supposedly lead its efforts. Every new program that a Congressional law enacts means the feds must hire a program manager, program analysts, service providers, auditors, secretaries, and acquire offices and all the accoutrements of any workplace. I bet many people outside the Beltway do not know that there are also legions of functionaries whose only job is to fulfill federal requirements for fairness or recognition, or forced charity. What, you say this can’t be true? Indeed, every federal office must comply with OSHA regs, EEO, and diversity rules. Before you call me a humbug or a coal baron lover, I come from a multi-ethnic family and love diversity. But every federal office must have an EEO rep, a diversity chair who forces people to celebrate Pacific Islanders pride month or some such nonsense, and a person who coerces charity from others. I’m not kidding you. The Combined Federal Campaign is a forced charity scheme consuming millions of dollars in time, real cash expenditures, and downtime for other barely-working federal employees. This class of people are the professional bulletin board decorators, skilled annoyers, and viewpoint pushers. They contribute not one keystroke towards the accomplishment of the government’s mission. And you are paying for it.

Finally, as a young college graduate I was forced by economic reality and the bad habit of enjoying a roof over my head, in taking a management consultant job as a government contractor. One particularly heinous assignment was to the Naval Sea Systems Command. I worked for a “technical” manager of a particular machinery system for ships. One of my assignments was to catalogue and account for all the technical publications and reports the many contractors supplied to the government manager as part of the fulfillment of the contract. I remember one particularly horrible week spent in a small cube with my curmudgeon, psycho of a government client. I had to do everything for him, including his email. Apparently, he was either too incompetent or lazy to catalog emails, or even delete ones in which he had no interest. I did it for him. How do I know so much about the professional bulletin board decorators? I had to delete the thousands of EEO, minority awareness, and retirement party announcements because he was too unfriendly to spend anymore than the absolute minimum with other breathing human beings.

I also learned that when hired by the government, they issue you a license to spend all day on the phone with your stock broker loudly planning every stock position in public. This is what the asshole on the other side of the cubicle did every day, all day, for weeks at a time, at the top of his lungs.

I also learned that the actual technical work, in this case preventing the severing of limbs by huge machinery, is performed by real guys ad gals who work with CAD/CAM programs, and guys in heavy aprons and helmets who TIG weld. You see the Navy frowns on chopping off the heads of it sailors. As I said above, one of my jobs was to catalogue the contractor technical documents against the contract requirements for my client. I spent a laborious two or three days finding the documents (literally phone book size reports), cataloging them, and stacking them in our shared depressing grey cubicle. After this, I asked my client, “What do you want me to do with them?” The answer came, “Throw ‘em away. That’s all here till I call you.” I threw the chest-high stack of shrink-wrapped tomes into secure garbage and left that chicken coop of ineptitude. He never read them, never archived them, never even broke the shrink wrap. So what was the purpose of this guy’s job? I bet he made $80k a year or more. Smart private industry engineers and welders fixed the actual equipment which was dangerous, apparently a technique learned about 100 years ago, but somehow overlooked by the government. And all the actual work was performed by contractors, even the mindless support of the mindless, unneeded role my client played in all this. That was me by the way.

A dirty secret which is completely in the open in government is that since no government employee can be fired, disciplined, or even cajoled into performing better, the government hires private industry to do nearly everything. Ah, Rednecky Templar dude, you may say, I’ve got you here. Private industry is already doing the work they should be. True dat, naysayer. But private industry does it with a huge overhead called the ‘government program,’ which spends as much or more of the program dollars on government people and processes than on actual mission accomplishment.

Since government employees are good at one thing – getting hired – contractors must do all else. Contractors do everything in DC but wipe the butts of SESers. And that is up for bid next week. But govvies screw this up consistently. I’ll end with another Navy ship story.

A Navy ship contract called for a door set 6 inches from diagonal stairway on the exterior of a ship. The welders and installers called their bosses at the private shipyard builder and told them, ‘if we weld in the stairs the door will open only 6 inches.’ Nothing got past these guys. The shipyard engineer called his government customer and told him the news. The governmentt guy asked, ‘what does the specification say.’ The shipyard engineer reviewed the spec and proclaimed it called for the FUBARed stairway in the government document, but totally wrong, potentially deadly in reality. Navy fitness policy allowed for Sailors of more than six inches in width. The yard was directed to build as in the spec. The Navy later hired other contractors to amend the ship drawings, hired a contractor to rip out the stairs and door, and other contractors to install a different configuration. By the way dear taxpaying salon-owner…all this was done at your expense.

Government only sucks up wealth. It creates poverty.

-Redneck Templar, riding the stimulus wave to perdition

Hillary Will Be Sidelined

President Obama chose Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, not to bolster US standing abroad, but to practice the oft-used axiom, ‘keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.’

Redneck Templar highlighted here, during the election, the despicable way in which the Clinton camp used race-baiting, thinly-veiled threats, and disinformation to discredit Mr. Obama.

Now that Mr. Obama is in control, he put Mrs. Clinton into a place where he can watch her closely. He is brave in doing this, perhaps foolhardy. But I believe he thinks Mrs. Clinton is safer where he can keep a weather eye on her, rather than letting her run amok in the US Senate, possibly sabotaging his policy initiatives, in hopes of a run at the Oval Office later.

Mrs. Clinton is likely to be an unabashed failure at her new job. Why? First, she has nearly zero foreign affairs experience. Her tasks as First Lady under her husband, hardly rise to the test of realpolitik required of even left-leaning overseas veterans.

Secondly, outside Europe, she has no substantive reputation in the areas of the globe where US policy is stickiest. Obviously, I’m speaking of the Middle East and Southwest Asia. She is not respected in the Muslim world. This is due to her husband’s shenanigans during his Presidency, and her own liability in the Muslim world as a liberalizing, vocal, some say, shrill woman politico. Her ideas of women’s liberation, which hardly fit with most American Christians, will play even worse in Muslim lands, even the moderate ones.

Lastly, Mrs. Clinton, like Mrs. Albright of past years, does not understand the uses and limits of hard power. She believes talk is better than national interest. She believes nasty regimes and dictators can be cajoled to embrace peace. She thinks if we just educate the backward parts of the world, they will come around to our point of view.

This classic left-liberal philosophy (and I use this term in the classic sense within the political science philosophical spectrum) will be trotted out once again by her. Mr. Obama knows she will be woefully inadequate at the job because of her inexperience and baggage. She has been replaced in the Senate formally. She has no bully pulpit to which to go back. He will let her go, or she will resign in ignominy. She will not finish out the first Obama administration. Then, Mr. Obama will have accomplished his goal of potentially sidelining the Clinton’s once and for all from US politics. Mr. Obama is nothing if not a shrewd political operator.

Parties Fail Obama Litmus Test, Again

This week, Hillary Clinton expressed dismay and shock at Geraldine Ferraro's comments on Barack Obama's popularity in the polls. But what we should be in shock and dismay about is the light that Mrs. Ferraro's comments shed on political power in this country. Mrs. Ferraro did a great deal to correctly define the state of politics, especially in relation to politico-racial alignment.

Mrs. Ferraro bluntly stated what racists all over are thinking, but too afraid to state in polite circles. "He happens to be very lucky who he is," referring to his race, his blackness, his supposed lack of scrutiny, his opposition to the coronation of Mrs. Clinton as empress of the American Empire. Her inference is that Mr. Obama is getting a free ride by the press, by Democrats, and even some rightists because people are afraid to look critically at his candidacy. She supposes they are afraid of being labelled racists if they do so. Hogwash, Mrs. Ferraro. Her comments point to two screamingly clear aspects of this Democratic race.

First, she points out the disgusting reality that Democrats are more comfortable with blacks in a "client" status, than in a leadership role on the left. For when blacks are mere clients of the left, they can be pitied, encouraged, and pointed to for supposed moral or political gain ('See, we're better than you. We care about these poor people.'). The times they are a changin', Mrs. Clinton. 21st century minorities are powerful blocks who do not need traditional roles in either political party. They certainly can stand alone. And individuals like Mr. Obama are laudable products of the strides in equality in the US. But this begs the larger, more sinister implication of Mrs. Ferraro's statement.

Second, the real reason Mrs. Ferraro and former President Clinton have trotted out the occasional racial offhand comment is that they are deathly afraid of Mr. Obama. What is disgusting is that the Clinton's will stoop to any measure to tar this man. I mean, when you have Camile Paglia, the doyen of leftist radical feminism, hardly a friend to the right or center, stating in public that she cannot trust the Clinton's, there's not much doubt that what I state is true. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton will do anything, no matter how reprehensible, to thwart Mr. Obama - even unto race-baiting. This pattern points to some sort of formal agenda within her campaign to use race-baiting when things go bad. Is this Willie Horton, or Alabama in 1961? Oh, wait, we're talking about Democrats?!

This week, Robin Quivers of "The Howard Stern Show" said it better than I on why the Clinton's have broken out the race bait locker: (paraphrasing) 'The real reason they are attacking Obama is not because they are concerned with how much scrutiny he has. They are attacking him because they don't want to compete against black people on an equal footing." She correctly went on to point out that Democrats are perfectly happy having blacks in the camp as long as they aren't up there with the white leaders. They must stay in their place and tow the line. Yes, the left is now afraid of the equality of its own clients. This is the real reason. The people of the US know exactly what type of administration they will get with another Clinton on Pennsylvania Avenue. They don't want it again, not even the leftmost members of that persuasion. What Mrs. Clinton doesn't realize is that the poltical plantation done got burnt down a long time ago. She better wake up.

I've examined the blatant hipocrisy of the Dems. What about the GOP? Unfortunately, the GOP is still run by the same bloated, pasty, white pudginess which cannot grasp an opportunity if it bites them on their fat little noses. Now is the time to make a bold move to embrace the African-American and Hispanic community. Now is the time to drive the dagger into the leftist alliance by talking responsiblity, urban investment, jobs, and tax cuts for workers. If Republicans had any sense at all they would hire legions of capable young people of color to explain and drive home the laissez faire doctrine in the inner city, not in the dying suburbs. The face of free markets would be brown and black, and speak with an urban inflection, but say the things dear to any working man's heart: Keep your money, raise your property value, keep "the man" out of your neighborhood, and secure freedom of choice in housing, schools, and jobs. But this is unlikely to happen as the Republicans have only the myopic vision of "defeat Hillary" on their minds.

I fear the promise of a fresh look via Mr. Obama will die on the vine, especially after he gains the Democratic nomination. Until that happens, we can look for the left to trot out the demons of our past in its cloying grasp at power. Our only hope is that people of color wake up to what is happening and demand a party that will not stoop to this. I doubt it though.

On nightwatch,
-Brother "nuther pot of coffee" Redneck Templar

Obama Gains Weird Conservative Support

Stafford, Virginia, USA - Obama's recent Potomac Primary wins were brought about by conservative skewing of the polls, especially in Virginia. The net result is likely to be a disgusting showdown within the Democratic Party as the Clinton's claw for power one final time.

In Virginia, where this blogger resides, waves of conservative voters did a scary thing on Tuesday. Braving nasty winter weather and the scowls of their Republican peers, many crossed over into unknown territory in the polling stations. They crossed to the Democratic polling machines and threw a vote for Mr. Obama. Do these Old Dominion reactionaries like Mr. Obama? Certainly not. His ideas are socialist in their minds. Rather, they crossed the lines in historic numbers and helped sign Mrs. Clinton's ticket back to the Senate, possibly for good.

This blogger's phone lines were lit up at home in an unofficial, grassroots movement of right-wingers to upset Mrs. Clinton's hopes. Several friends called and expressed glee in voting for Mr. Obama, encouraging others to do so as well. As school boys smoking a pilfered cigarette behind the gym, these conservatives reveled in their naughty role.

However, Virginia's rightists only rang the warning bell for what is getting ready to happen. Will Mrs. Clinton relinquish the leftist crown to Mr. Obama? Probably not. Probably not willingly or with grace, at least. That simply is not her style. A full-fledged very ugly fight is brewing. Virginia was only the harbinger. Mr. Clinton's earlier race-bating and shrill denunciations of legitimate fact-finder sin the previous weeks were further indicators as to the lengths the Clinton camp is willing to go to garner the nomination. It is likely to get much uglier, with race being a bludgeon among the supposedly correct-thinking left.

Leftists nationwide face one major question over the next months: "How far will the Clinton camp go to rob or wheel & deal Mr. Obama out of the nomination?" I believe she will go all out. She will use every nasty tactic, red herring, and outright smoky room move to rip away the nomination from Mr. Obama.

The end result of this despicable act will be the rupturing of the small polity the Dems had created by hating Bush's policies. At best they will anger black and minority voters (this has already happened). At worst this act will destroy the Democrats chances for any real power for 15 years or more, causing a rift that may not be repairable. Conservatives could laugh with joy, were this not so despicable for our democracy.

One bright light could emerge from this act. Black Americans may finally be weened from the liberal camp, accurately seeing that the Dems have only used them like tools thus far in history. It's doubtful the Republicans will capitalize on this minority discontent. They are too myopic and dense for that. Possibly, though a long shot, a third party could arise from the disillusionment with the left. This is a tough sell in American politics...but hey, one can dream.

It's a sad commentary in these trying times that both sides are still focused on the internal fight rather than the external threat. One would have thought we could put aside the shennanigans here at home while free trade and democratic principles are being challenged once again by despots abroad.

Yours Respectfully,

-Chief "I didn't make the rules, I just enjoy them" Templar.