Thursday, January 21, 2010


Today, in a five to four ruling, the Supreme Court finally decided that all men are created equal...even rich men. After lifting the restrictions on the amount of money a corporation can give to a political campaign and when they're allowed to run ads prior to an election, the Supreme Court all but sealed the fate of "the McCain/Fiengold act" which has made mince meat of the first amendment since it's inception.
As expected, the left is having a tantrum. Why? Because of the long held liberal myth that corporations are nothing more than conglomerations of robotic non-human entities from a far away galaxy who's only purpose in life is to destroy the lives of poor people. Believe it or not though, corporations are actually comprised of American citizens who just so happen to own businesses. That's right, American citizens. Not robots, not elves, not space aliens, and not in-animate objects under the control of some OZ-like character hiding behind some massive green curtain. Corporations are nothing more than groups of people who share a common interest, as well as the same Constitutional rights as we "poor folk".

The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee our rights assuming only that you meet a specific income guideline. It guarantees ALL of us the same rights, regardless of whether you're dirt-poor broke, or the CEO of a major investment firm. And like ALL of us, the American CEO has the right to free speech. That means he/she has the right to purchase a prime time spot to air his multi-million dollar ad campaign for or against any candidate at any time.

This is when the liberal would say "But that's not fair, some people can't afford to buy ads on TV, and that could lead to corruption!". OK, can you point me to the line in Constitution that guarantees the right of the people to "afford", well...anything? To afford something has to do with personal ability, not personal rights. As for corruption, as long as a human being is involved, their could be (not necessarily will be) corruption. As for fairness, it is absolutely fair because both the rich and poor man have the right to purchase air time and speak their mind. The only difference is that one may not have the ability.
Another argument against this ruling is that only the opinion of "the rich" will find it's way into the public discourse. Really? You mean the opinion of a rich person like Al Gore? Or like George Soros? Maybe you mean the opinion of rich guys like Rush Limbaugh or Mitt Romney? I'll see your Barbara Streisand, and raise you one John Voight. How about I trade you one Ted Turner for a Rupert Murdoch? Just what is the opinion of a rich person?

Thankfully for us, these issues were sorted out a long time ago by a group of both rich and poor guys known as our founding fathers. They explain it all in a little piece of parchment called the Bill of Rights.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010


As of the writing of this article, Scott Brown is being projected the winner of the Massachusetts special election. As I type, I can hear Martha Coakley giving her concession speech in the background as my wife puts my son to sleep for the night. Though I realize the fight to save our country is far from over, I will be able to sleep a little better tonight knowing that there may be more "common sense" Americans out there than I originally thought. Considering my concern for the future of my children, and my recent bout with ideological "war weariness", I believe this is just the shot-in-the-arm I needed.

Already, excuses are being made, as well as bizarre suggestions as to what Democrats should do to save their quickly sinking ship. One genius says that this election means that Democrats need to be more liberal, and another thinks it's a mandate against Republican policies. Brilliant!
As for this particular political pontificator, I think this election says many things, not the least of which is that the Kennedy machine has a broken crank shaft and a cracked block. The voters have responded by buying a whole knew car.

I read this election as a sign that ALL states are "in play" now...and every Democrat candidate up for election in November, or 2012 just crapped their pants. If this election were in Maryland, or West Virginia, it might be mildly newsworthy, but this happened in MASS-A-FREAK'N-CHUSETTS! What state is more traditionally "blue" than Massachusetts? None! What Senate seat has been more solidly liberal than Ted Kennedy's? None!

The message has been sent to Obama, the unions, A.C.O.R.N., Congress, and the ain't "all that", and your agenda is living on borrowed time. Another lesson that some should learn from tonight's events is that if you see Barack Obama coming down the street to give you a hand with your campaign...RUN! RUN LIKE THE WIND!

Monday, January 11, 2010


I credit this post to my wife. She once asked me why I love her. I told her that one of the things that draws me to her is also one of the things that annoys me the most. In short, she has a way of dragging me kicking and screaming out of my comfort zone. If it were not for her, I would most likely be a uni-bomber-esque hermit of some sort (minus the whole mail bomb, and violent tendencies thing) living in a shack in the woods.
Though a life of seclusion and absolute privacy still appeals to me, I am grateful for my exposure to other aspects of life I would have otherwise never experienced. This exposure has made me a better person, if for no other reason than I learn something from each new thing that Mrs. Roadhouse "suggests" I try. This got me to thinkin'.

If my formerly liberal way of thinking could be so transformed by simply being exposed to other people, maybe other liberals are simply suffering from a lack of exposure to the other side of the coin as well. In my first book, I wrote that I do not think liberalism is some great "conspiracy", rather nothing more than an institutional mind set. Consider the following.
If there is such a thing as a "core" to the poison apple of liberalism, it is surely the large metropolitan city, namely New York, Chicago, L.A., Seattle, etc., etc. Here, liberalism can thrive for one main reason...insecurity. Face it, we all have insecurities, but unless you live and work along side a few million people every day, you might not be as pressured to confront them.

Case in point - me. I am the original "country mouse". I live well outside of a small farming town, and I drive big rigs for a living. If I so choose, I can go for days without interacting with anyone, with the exception of my family. And in my "culture", it is a social norm that everyone understands that your opinions are your own, and you are not entitled to agreement from anyone. We are under little pressure to hold a particular opinion, because most of us simply don't care what the other guy thinks. As a result, opinions tend to vary in the country, and social standards are dictated by common sense, not popularity.

For the "city mouse", none of this is the case. In the city, space, quiet, fresh air, time, civility, and freedom of movement are all but non-existent. To assume that this alone would not have an effect on one's mentality would be naive at best. For one thing, "city mouse" rarely has time to collect his/her thoughts and just think. Try finding a quiet spot to simply "chill" for a few hours in the city. Somewhere where there is no noise, elbows, or thumping music is akin to an oasis in the desert. This leaves little opportunity for "city mouse" to mull over the validity or merit of his/her opinions.
Then there is the never ending peer pressure city folks suffer from. Sure, you can wear a bone through your nose and pink leotard on the street and probably not get many strange looks. But try quoting Patrick Henry in a corporate break room and see how fast you can be ostracised. Over time, the prevailing viewpoint on any given issue tends to be considered the norm. Not because it makes sense, but because no one took the initiative to dispute it for fear of being looked at as a freak. After all, standing out in a crowd of three thousand (my town's current population) is one thing, but a crowd of over one million is a whole other story.
Couple all this with the fact that the bulk of our media is rooted in these cities and charged with distributing information to the rest of us, and you have a recipe for intellectual disaster across the nation.

It is my belief that if those closet conservatives who reside in the city were more willing to speak out, it might be harder for liberalism to infect the rest of us. It's time for them to get out of their comfort zone.