Darkwater RetreatSearching far and wide for signs of intelligence.

J. D. Salinger, author of the book Catcher in the Rye, died today at age 91.

Mr. Salinger passed away today at his Cornish, New Hampshire home.

It seems that Democrat and Republican leaders should be prepared to take their lumps in future elections.

According to Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger, there may be a new political party to contend with.  Daniel, Deputy Editorial Director of the Wall Street Journal, contends that, per local elections held in states that previously carried President Obama, there seems to be much disatisfication with the present administration.  American’s are beginning to reevaluate their decisions for who they need to lean toward for political leadership.

Perhaps a third political party…  The “Tea” Party?

Click on the picture for an interview with Mr. Henninger by The Wall Street Journal’s Kelsey Hubbard.

Click here to read the story.

We all knew it was happening….but just didn’t want to admit it.

John Mellencamp believes that right leaning bloggers (like us at Darkwater) are “a*****s” and free speech only aplies to the collective. See the story here; here; or here.

John Stossel talks about bias. Click here!

Link

CLICK ABOVE AND YOU WILL LEARN WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS UP TO.

December 25,  1979 – creating a scar

It was nice being around the extended family for the holidays. I was an only child. My parents moved me from one podunk town to the next while they were trying to wrestle up work. Other than my mom and dad, I rarely had the opportunity to connect with any other family members.  This holiday was especially nice in that we were going to fly back to a small midwestern town to spend time with my mom’s entire family. This was a time before free texting or the internet that helped to keep families in touch. The only options for staying in touch during those early years was snail mail, paying exorbitant long distance prices to Ma Bell, or traveling long distances to your relatives’ houses. Of course this only applied to my parents and me because the rest of the family lived less than an hour of each other.

My grandparents’ house was the center-point of operations for all family events and gatherings.  The whole family (except me) knew the house inside and out.  Although I didn’t live in the same community and wasn’t familiar with the surroundings like the rest of my cousins or family, I still was “technically” part of the family and I couldn’t have been happier to share the holiday with them. I was just a chubby, goofy kid that was just enjoying a kinship that most of the others probably took for granted.

Christmas was going great and my cousins and I were opening presents.  After many spectacular presents (and several boring ones) my parents had saved the best for the last. I opened the greatest portable game device of all time “The Mattel Electronic Football game!”  To say I was excited would be an understatement. The only problem was that my folks forgot to include the darn batteries.  I frantically asked everyone in the house if they had batteries that I could borrow. I even asked my cousins if I could borrow batteries from one of their toys they weren’t currently using (which produced sneers and that “don’t be ridiculous” grimace).  Finally I asked my grandma if she had any batteries I could borrow and she called on my grandpa to show me where they kept them. My grandfather led me to the garage/rec-room where they kept just about everything but a car (it even had a frequently used card table). My grandfather walked over to one of the many cabinets lining the walls and pulled open a drawer that contained a panacea of miscellaneous batteries. There were enough batteries in that drawer to restock every electronic device in the house several times over. I knew that my quest for the ultimate gaming experiences was just about to come to fruition and then something happened that would change my life forever.

With the sounds of merriment coming from the adjoining rooms my grandfather bent down, looked me straight in the eyes and made me promise that I would return the batteries as soon as I was done with them. Many of you right now might be thinking to yourself  “is that all?  What is the big deal?”  A million thoughts immediately ran though my head and the results of my computations caused a tear to develop deep inside me. It soon developed into a scar and has become a soft spot ever since. You see it wasn’t a “return them when your done kiddo”  type of response, it was a very serious oath that he specifically made me repeat to punctuate its seriousness.  As though these batteries he was entrusting to me were the mystical holy batteries of Antioch. What was most troubling, these weren’t special batteries (I don’t even think they were new batteries) and the drawer from which they came wasn’t special either. All of the drawers were filled with miscellaneous crap (after all it was a game room). Squirt guns, balloons, old fireworks, pet toys and the like were stuffed in these cabinets and none were particularly valuable unless you were a kid jonesing for a video game fix and needed a battery. Others in the house knew of this drawer and could have pilfered the contents and no one would have thought twice about it. My cousins could have created a fanciful puppet show from all of the batteries to the delight of the crowd,  but I was made to beg for just two. I visioned countless fruitcakes (far more costly than these batteries) being given out to various friends and neighbors that season who undoubtedly tossed them into the trash receptacles the moment they were out of eye shot of the givers.  I wasn’t a friend or neighbor and I wasn’t asking for a fruitcake. I was a ten year old that borrowed two worn-out batteries for what turned out to be about ten minutes and a scar that has lasted forever.

October 29. 2009 – that old familiar feeling

Traveling through the West Virgina countryside on the return leg of my business convention/family vacation couldn’t have been better.  My daughter sat in the back seat listening to songs on her Ipod, while my wife and I enjoyed the beautiful scenery while listening to a Stephen King audio book on the car stereo.  We had been listening to several hours of his newest collection of short ghost stories (enjoying every creepy tale) when one of his stories brought back a sinking, sickly feeling of an old tender wound.  The culprit of that aching feeling came when King was setting up the background of the two primary characters of the story. In this particular story, he was giving the reader (in this case the listener) an internal dialog that would give insight as to the personalities and motivations of these characters. When describing the various nuances of what (in this case the heroine of the story) was all about, he relates how the character’s name is Jenna but desires to go by the name of Jen.  She prefers Jen, King explains, because she cannot stomach the idea of having a name that is shared by a Bush.  Nothing more in the story was said about that reference. King seemed to have inserted that dialog in order to further the back-story of the character and to produce some kind of “wink, wink, nudge, nudge , you know what I mean”  kind of subtext in the reader’s mind.

Why did King find it necessary to insert a “Bush-hating” innuendo into the story?  What the hell does Jenna Bush have to do with anything?  I too did not like George Bush because of his policies but it never occurred to me to put a curse on the name of his first born. Why stop there Mr. King!  Surely there are far more villainous people we could apply the curse to than Bush? Let’s curse the name Anna for the list because it was Mussolini’s daughter’s name; and Paula (Adolf  Hitlers sister’s name); and Omar (bin Laden’s son’s name); and Carole (serial killers Jon Wayne Gacy’s wife’s name). By the time we are done cursing all the names of everyone in the families of people that have ever done wrong, we all would end up being cursed.

The sinking feeling in my soft spot hurt because of  the irrationality of his statement and the unfairness of the action. In the garage back in ’79, I felt picked on the same way I felt Jenna was being picked on in the story. King picked on Jenna because he didn’t like her father. I thought back and wondered if  my father (who was quite the hellion when he was courting my mother) was the reason for my grandfather’s actions. Then I wondered what soft spot was poked by President Bush that caused Mr. King to revert back to his own version of  a garage/rec-room?  I wonder what tremendous soft spot has been poked that would cause liberals to muse on how they wish for the gang rape of Sarah Palin (per Sandra Bernhard ) or the sexual assault of her children (per David Letterman)?  What in Sarah Palin’s “Golly gee, oh shucks!” kind of vernacular and the family values type of context would incite such hatred? Was a young nerdy or otherwise outcast  Ms. Bernhard teased by some cute “popular kid” on the playground? Did she look out of her bedroom window at night looking at the family next door playing board games by the fireplace while they laughed and drank hot coco while she sat in the dark all alone being angry? Surely something caused a mighty tear in her soul.

Obviously, King, Bernhard, Letterman and the like have serious “soft spot” issues.  I clearly have a “soft spot” issue.  The difference between me and them is perspective. I was hurt by the events in the garage because of the perceived unfairness of it.  What I didn’t do was hate my grandfather from then on.  Nor did  I project my grievances onto grandpas in general or Midwesterners for that matter.  I dislike various liberals in relation to their “policies” and nothing more. If I had a salve that cured these soft spots I would surely share it with them.

Note:  In more serious news, I have lost the following item shown below.  If you find it, please return it ASAP. Thanks for your cooperation. (P.S. please include the batteries).

The midwest is in full court dress in October.  It’s my favorite time of year for visiting my hometown – Podunkville.   Born and raised in Podunkville –  home of the Podunkville Porcupines .  Yay! Go team go!

My annual midwest visit serves a double purpose.  Autumn is also the birth date of my grandchild.  Ya’ll know the ditty – Grandma’s the name and spoilin’s the game.  Well, that’s me to a tee!

It just so happened that my grandchild had been awarded with a school letter (makes my heart proud); however did not have a jacket on which to display this honor.  It was perfect timing for this ole grandma to purchase something special that would not be stuffed away in the bottom drawer until grandma returns again.  I contacted the high school to order appropriate jacket but was informed that all sports apparel purchases were through a local Podunkville merchant.  Supposedly, the local sports shop was the only game in town for obtaining specific Porcupine logo purchases.

Upon entering the sports shop, it was truly a porcupine experience – prickly.  I felt as though I had entered a private meeting of some secret Order of the Porcupine and was imposing on their time and space. I’m quite aware that I could not pass for your typical cheer-squad mom so I let the moment pass.  After much thrashing through racks of elusive jackets, I realized that I had questions (up to this point neither owner had asked if I needed assistance).  I literally begged for help and my questions were answered with haughty contempt.  At first, my thought was ok, Miss Fancy Pants, I believe you’re in need of a good whuppin’; but I persevered and continued with my stupid questions (based on her attitude, I assumed they were stupid).  When all was said and done, the total purchase price, including embroidered logo and attachment of letter, was a whopping one hundred fifty dollars.  Being a typical grandma, I was prepared to spend an obscene amount of money to make my grandchild happy.

I now offer an analogy and the direction of my story — a case for free market competition.  More explicitly, Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory. The local high school (government) had set parameters restricting free market competition.  The Podunkville sports shop had been offered a monopoly on all logo apparel for the community (no competition).  Their shopping hours were whenever the owners felt like being there (I had visited the shop on several occasions to find it closed); products within the store were limited (most products had to be special ordered); and as far as customer service – absolutely atrocious.  After checking with other sports shops, I found that the Podunkville shop was my only option.  Of course, I could order direct from the manufacturer; however, I would have to order a minimum of twelve jackets in order to receive a reasonable price (which did not include the embroidery or attachment of the letter).  As I said before, I was more than willing to spend an obscene amount of money but it’s the principal of the situation.  I was outraged!  The owners knew they were the ultimate winner of the game. Apparently, there was no team spirit in being the best that they could be in customer servicing or providing a quality product at a reasonable price.  Isn’t competition what sport events are all about?  Without competition there was no desire or even a moral disposition toward providing their community with primo consumer satisfaction.  This Podunkville shop was in fact given the opportunity to give the best possible service to its own community (without that annoying competition factor).  Why didn’t they?

Isn’t that exactly what our current liberal administration continues to preach to us?  People will naturally do-the-right-thing based upon a desire to spread the wealth through moral and honorable convictions in regard to humanitarian responsibilities?  Of course we all want to believe (or hope) people will do the honorable thing.  We all desire a utopian society where this would be possible.  Socialistic and communistic belief is based on the false premise that people (government merchants of goods and services who will monopolize the market) will offer the best possible service and product because it’s the ethical and moral right-thing-to-do. It simply will not happen.  However, free market competition will (and does) force people to do-the-right thing. People, by nature, will always look out for their own best interest.  This is reality – plain and simple.  Government cannot force it down our throats.  A system must be in place wherein services and goods are allowed to flow in a market – freely and invisibly. The invisible hand theory does work.  A competing sports shop in Podunkville would administer a competitive invisible hand whuppin’ to the current sport shop which would force them to either change their sour attitude or lose business.

I gave my grandchild an obscene amount of cash with instructions to spend on whatever and wherever  — excluding the local sport shop of course.  Free market competition doesn’t necessarily mean your team will always be a winner.

White House boasts: We ‘control’ news media.

This should come as no surprise to anyone.  This admission, however, is quite refreshing?  Is that the word I’m looking for?  It’s something any one of us could have come to the conclusion of on our own, but to have it actually stated by Obama’s communications chief is quite a revelation, yet not surprising in the least.

White House is waging a new war against …….Fox News?

Chick here to read story!

This is a topic that can go a lot of ways, but here I would like to put up for discussion how we are losing our Native cultural heritage because of political correctness. Specifically, I’m arguing against the dropping of mascots from sports teams.

I originally hail from Illinois. Wait, let me quantify that: I originally hail from Southern Illinois. For outsiders who don’t know the politics of the state, there are two types of people from Illinois. Those from Chicago and those that are not. I come from the latter.

Growing up there, it was hard to not notice the Native American legacy. Our state is named after the Illiniwek tribe, a great number of towns are named after area tribes or groups, and it’s hard to belong to a high school conference with at least one team that isn’t named Warriors, Indians, or Chiefs. It’s part of our culture and, for not only me but a great number of Americans, it’s in our blood. So when the University of Illinois decided they were going to drop their “Chief Illiniwek” mascot a couple of years ago, I saw it as a slight against not just me and the people of my state, but against the country as a whole.

It’s also hard not to notice the Native American legacy when just looking at a US map:

-Dakota is a branch of the Sioux.

-Indiana literally means “Land of the Indians.”

-Kentucky is based on (according to a leading theory) the Iriquoi word for “meadows.”

-Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw word for “red people.”

-Arkansas comes from a Sioux word meaning “land of the downriver people.”

-Kansas comes from the Kansa tribe.

-Nebraska comes from the Omaha word for “flat water.” Omaha is also the name of that state’s largest city.

-Iowa gets its name from the Ioway tribe.

-Ohio comes from the Seneca word for “large creek.”

You see where I’m coming from here. It’s all around us, but politically correct campuses are dropping respectful visual depictions of this heritage when most of the country is historically illiterate.

Illinois wasn’t the first to drop a mascot, and it wasn’t the last. A few months ago, the University of North Dakota decided to drop it’s mascot in the name of political correctness, and it’s unfortunate. The “Fighting Sioux” showed reverence toward the culture that spawned that state’s name, but apparently not anymore.

So you say “Hey there, Mr. Scholar. America was evil towards the Indians. If they don’t want to be shown in institutions of higher learning in the country that treated them so badly, that’s their right.”

Well, that is not totally correct, and that popular belief is one of the foundations for these politically correct policies. It was never really a bi-partisan American policy that decimated the Indian population. Before America was a country, the settlers spread diseases like smallpox to the Indians, sure, but they brought back to Europe diseases from the Indians that hit their home populations hard. There were proxy wars where settlers were used as pawns in inter-tribal warfare. After the colonists beat the French during the French/Indian war, they turned their attention on the still declared war against the Indians. All of those things happened in American history, but it wasn’t until President Jackson took office that things took a turn for the worse. The state of the Indians can and should be largely placed at the feet of the Democrat party.

It’s a case of extreme irony that Liberal/Democrats are largely behind these mascot policies. I suppose they see their work of erasing the Native culture a bit of unfinished business.

I will say that there are some politically incorrect mascots that are more of a mockery than anything else. The Cleveland Indian mascot comes to mind. For those, I offer no defense. What I am defending are respectful representations that show reverence for the original inhabitants of the areas they are based in.

We, as a nation, need to keep those mascots and the alumni of those institutions should proudly promote them. We need to display this bit of heritage with pride or we risk losing it forever.

President Obama is the latest to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.  What did he do to get this, you ask?  He spoke words that filled people with hope.  He spoke beautifully, eloquently even.  He swooned people, they fainted, they cried.  It was a beautiful moment just under a year ago when he said, “join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.”

The reality of this is, nominations for the Nobel closed 11 days AFTER Obama was sworn into office, which means he was nominated before he was ever elected.  Nominated because of the words he spoke in Grant Park.  He won not for what he has done, but for things he hopes to do.

I figure that all we have to do in order to receive such an honor as the Nobel Prize is to speak well, speak often, fill people with hope and promise them things that we can’t possibly fulfill.

Story.

There has been some talk about Obama “changing” the Bill of Rights.

Whitehouse page.

Now, I don’t see it that way, some do.  I see it as the White House breaking down the jest of each of the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Do I think they could have done it differently?  Sure.  They could perhaps have left the original language of each of these Amendments and then put a brief synopsis of what each means, but they didn’t.

That said, the President nor the Congress has the power to just change the wording of the United States Constitution; and if they did, it would become a document that was not ratified by the states and thus void.  A voided United States Constitution mean that there is no longer one Country known as the United States of America, but we then would, in essence, become fifty different countries each with their own Constitution.  Then there would be no need for a Federal President, nor a Federal Government as each states own Governor would become, for lack of a better word, President; with each state’s Congress being the “Government”.

Just something to think about.

Hello everyone,
My friends call me the Professor and I’ve been off  ”R” (Republican) for at least three years now. I remember when I first started getting into “R” back in college. My friends and I would do crazy “R” parties where we would go and listen to radicals like Jack Kemp who would talk about things like “Capitalism” and “love of country” and such. I even married a radical who actually attended the “R” version of Woodstock where she witnessed the Berlin Wall come down. My fondest memory was when, upon wakening one morning, that “R” dealer Ronald Reagan bombed Libya while most of us were sleeping.  No long drawn out talks, no request for UN negotiations involving Russia and China, just BAM!  One day Gadaffi is mouthing off and acting like a big shot and next there was a missile flying through the front door of the presidential palace.  Back in the day, I loved Reagan and everything to do with “R”. My mentor in economics was an economist that worked for the Reagan administration. He would tell me all the wonderful stories about the inner workings of the administration.  He told stories of how they tricked the commies into spending money they didn’t have in trying to combat our mostly fabricated Star Wars initiative (absolutely brilliant).  Back in the day, “R” was about capitalism, smaller government and fighting back communist hordes.   But then, the high I was receiving with “R” started decreasing and was replaced by a very bad trip. The beginning of the end started with Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush.  I remember vividly when he accepted the Republican nomination and said he would work to make the country a “kinder gentler nation!”

A kinder gentler nation?  Those words to me were more like the feeling of catching your sweetheart in bed with another. Was Bush Sr. calling me, my friends and my beloved former president, A-Holes?  The economy was booming, smaller government sentiment was on the rise and the commies were in retreat, but WE’RE CALLED THE A-HOLES?  When I first heard him say this, I thought,  ”What in the hell did those commies slip into Bush’s drink! Get this man some help, he’s clearly delirious! How in the world did we elect this Manchurian Candidate?”  I stood stunned as I waited for someone to tackle him and whisk him off to be deprogrammed or something. I felt exactly like Kathy Bates did in the movie Misery where she is yelling how frustrated she was while watching a movie where the audience ignores the clearly contradictory element of the previous movie (click here to watch).

No one seemed to be bothered by this but me. No matter how bad the trip became, people were still hooked on “R”.  I guess some figured it was better than being hooked on “D”.  It continued to get worse, and the party was all about concession and compromise.  Bush would promise the old rush of “no new taxes” but then cave-in due to liberal pressure. Of course, the Democrats wouldn’t thank him for this gesture. They used it against him and mocked him for giving THEM what THEY wanted! Some Republicans were still in denial of the problem and would say things like, ”He didn’t mean to do it!” or “He means well!”  But the reality was that he did mean it! The Liberals called him a “Neo-con!”  Formerly, I defended him and also that word Neo-con because liberals used it to attack Republicans. I assumed the term was like the word “fascist” where they corrupted its meaning.  But it wasn’t a lie, he really is a Neo-con, and it is a bad thing.

At the time, I didn’t know the history of the Neo-conservative movement. While my friends and I were more traditional conservatives which focused on small government, Neo-cons were primarily comprised of former liberals that still believed in big government. They simply changed tactics. In addition, they liked that they could incorporate the use of  military muscle.  Early on, Republicans allowed Neo-cons into the party to increase the rolls and were unaware that they were letting the fox into the hen house. A quote from a traditional Republican sums it up best:  ”It’s one thing to let the prostitute into the flock but it is another to let her lead the congregation.”

The trip has continued to get worse. Bush Jr. heavily increased the size of government and started this whole spending craze in Washington. McCain is currently trying to get the new Republicans to move to the center. The center? Can he even see the light from the end of the tunnel where the real center truly is?  My friends and I used to laugh at McCain. We speculated as to when he was going to switch parties. Does no one remember the discussions in the media of him contemplating switching parties?  Though I’ve been off  “R” years ago, thanks to the help of my friends — the Libertarians, McCain’s nomination closed the door on any attempt to lure me back.

I’m now three years “R” sober.  I invite you to join with me in the struggle against “R” addiction.  TOGETHER we can become clean and sober!

Proof that Republicans still don’t get it.

Building on Thinker’s post on the subject I’d like us to dive into “State’s Rights.”

The term itself has a negative connotation to it, mainly because it was the argument used by the Southern states in defense of slavery and as a rallying call for secession. Therefore, everyone that brings it up is a racist. It’s a bunk claim, that people who understand and believe in the concept of federalism are automatically racist, and one that has been a knee-jerk reaction to this issue for far too long.

Back during the founding there was no country to speak of. The colonies had long saw themselves as separate entities from one another and people within them referred to their respective state as their country. Distrustful of the Motherland, they were loathe to create their own version of the same thing, so they devised the Articles of Confederation. A unified front was needed to fight Britain and, assuming they would win the revolution, from the other European empires that already had holdings in the Americas.

But it didn’t work. The country was in debt with no power to pay it off. So the Founders wrote the Constitution, giving the federal government a bit more power. This set off a huge debate and two main factions arose: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

The former were for the new federal government as the Constitution laid it out, the latter were against it. Both were aware of the dangers associated with giving a central authority power, so they came together and laid out very specific duties that the federal government was to execute and laid out the powers it was to have over the states in Section 8. These powers were always meant to be limited and everything else was left to the States to handle.

The point here is that throughout the founding the States were acknowledged to be in charge of day-to-day business that lay outside the federal enumerated powers.There were no racist feelings behind it. It was largely about the law. Before the Civil war, there was no federal law banning the practice of slavery, so states were free to legislate on the subject as they saw fit. The result? A lot of states banned it. This is what the concept of federalism is all about. If one state had a better idea of how to do business, you could vote with your feet and go live there. Both black and white saw this and took advantage. It may have taken another generation, but through federalism we could have seen a peaceful and less destructive resolution because slavery could simply not compete in the growing global economy where the main buyers of the south’s goods were countries that abhorred the practice.

So what do we have today? Well, we don’t have the government the Founders built for us. We’ve been slowly devolving from a country of checks and balances (a republican form of government) to one of mob rule (pure democracy), and to get out of it I would propose three legal issues that fall under the header of “State’s Rights” that need to be dusted off and brought up to the spotlight once again.

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment: This amendment changed the way Senators were voted on, moving it from state legislatures to the popular vote. By doing so it removed an important check on the federal government by removing a direct State check on the federal government and turned the upper house into little more than an elite version of the House.

2. Nullification: Despite the precedent being that the federal government has the final say, and given the fact that states have no true representation at the federal level, some state legislature should reach up, find a pair, and say in one voice that a law, a regulation, a program the federal government is instituting is unconstitutional.

3. Secession: I’m not an advocate of secession, but it is important to note that there was no way the states would have signed on to the Union without the option of being able to bow out when it proved detrimental to their survival. A solid legal argument should be made along the lines of the recent 10th Amendment movements seen in a number of states this year. Texas was the most visible this year, with the governor even signing on.

It’s important we reaffirm the original charter of the United “States” if we are to see the same opportunities that previous generations had and used to make our country that shining light on the hill.

THIS IS PERFECT!!!!

If that does not make you feel ill, I’m not sure what will.

Let us not forget with whom we are dealing, however.