Author Archive

Don’t Give Up…

Posted: June 5, 2011 by benjiefrank in Uncategorized

Please, liberal friends, every small freedom that you give up in the name of ‘security’ does far more long term harm than short term good.  Every decision you make should be made from the perspective of your grandchildren, whether you have them yet or not.  To steal a phrase from the environmentalist wackos, ‘We did not inherit the Earth from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children.’  Thanks for listening.


After several days of listening to the talking heads analyze and discuss the reasons and circumstances of Osama Bin Laden’s death, I have heard two main theories bandied about. First, some say that Osama’s death was the result of operational conditions, where his aggressive behavior precipitated the much quoted “double tap to the head.” Second, others say that his death was ordered by the administration to avoid any extreme backlash from angry Muslims.  To whit, Boortz posited that if we had taken him alive, then an American family would have immediately been taken hostage somewhere in the world and gruesome, tense ‘negotiations’ would have taken place.

Both theories make sense, but after looking at the now famous situation room photo (a room full of Democrats), one question began looping in my jaded noggin: What are the political implications of ‘kill’ versus ‘capture?’ Upon reflection, it is clear that capturing Osama would create a dichotomy in the value structure of liberals, resulting in a “lose-lose” political quagmire. However, killing him results in similar circumstances.

For example, if the Navy Seals had captured Osama then the ‘humanitarian’ bent of liberals would have been satisfied, but then the administration would also have to DO SOMETHING with him. Obviously, bringing him to US soil would have been political suicide because not even Eric Holder would advocate for local imprisonment and a civilian trial for this guy. Going on, the administration could not send him to one of our allies, because the sane ones wouldn’t even consider it and the insane ones would torture him–negating the ‘feel good’ nature of capture versus kill, and enraging the far left. Finally, Obama could not drop Bin Laden in Gitmo, because that would be the final nail in his ridiculous ‘close-Gitmo’ campaign promise and force him to publicly acknowledge the Bush administration’s rationale for using Gitmo in the first place. I think we all know the chances Obama will give Bush some credit are nil.

Now, let’s consider the ‘kill’ option.  At first glance, killing Osama would further diminish far left support.  However, this is an easy hurdle to jump,given Osama’s reputation.  Even the hippest of hippies can understand putting two bullets in THIS murderer’s head, which speaks to another, larger conversation about how liberal morals shift on a case-by-case basis.  All that is really needed is a valid excuse to kill him, and most people will shrug and say, “Well, they didn’t have much choice, so they HAD to kill him.”  The other political risks of the ‘kill’ option are obvious and well covered in the pund-o-sphere.  Burial-at-sea solves the issue of his grave site becoming  a shrine for other jihadists.  It also provides fuel for the firestorm of questions sure to come out of the conspiracy theory camps of every stripe, which gives the administration an ugly broad brush with which to paint every person who disagrees with them–exactly like the ‘birther’ issue.  (It seems obvious to me that Obama did not release his birth certificate because he could bash every conservative over the head with the issue as long as someone ‘out there’ was screaming about it.)

All other issues with the ‘kill’ option are similarly easy to navigate the dead man’s history, so it becomes apparent that killing Bin Laden is the least politically risky maneuver.  Now that we’ve established that other more disturbing questions come to mind.  If the administration chose the ‘kill’ option based on political expediency, do they have any morals whatsoever?  How big a step would need to be taken for them to choose the kill option against an American for the same reasons?  After all, Obama and Holder both agree that KSM deserves Habeas Corpus, even though he is not an American citizen, but that Al Awlaki (sp?) deserves to be killed on-sight, even though he IS an American citizen!  Can anyone who voted for Obama to take a stand against the Bush administrations ‘assaults on human rights’ still support Obama and be taken seriously?  Can Obama be taken seriously, given that he has seemingly abandoned every one of his core principles, each betrayal occurring for political expediency rather than an honest reassessment of those principles?  Finally, if Obama chooses to cross the ‘kill’ option threshold for political gain again, where does that leave free speech and dissidence in this country?

This is why I am a conservative.  The government’s job is to provide protection from abuse from other humans, and to do so within the limits of an extremely well defined constitution.  History has shown that as governments grow in size and power, they protect less and actually become the abuser.  However, if you’ve been abused by the government, who do you turn to?  Has anyone ever left an audit and felt more powerful, or that they actually have options to protect themselves?  Please, liberal friends, every small freedom that you give up in the name of ‘security’ does far more long term harm than short term good.  Every decision you make should be made from the perspective of your grandchildren, whether you have them yet or not.  To steal a phrase from the environmentalist wackos, ‘We did not inherit the Earth from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children.’  Thanks for listening.


Dale Carnegie's Classic...A Must Read for Everybody!

For years, I have been watching assorted news shows, listening to talk radio, and engaging in political/philosophical/theoretical debates and discussions with my friends and family members.  However, I have always been struck by how quickly these discussions can turn ugly, where people who genuinely love and respect one another walk away from exchanges with true disdain for one another.

Then, I read the Carnegie Classic, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”  The story he relates about Benjamin Franklin spoke so deeply to me that I decided to start a blog where my name-sake would be proud.  The crux of the Franklin story is that, as a young man, Ben was abrasive and disrespectful of people with whom he had philosophical disagreements.  However, he soon realized that people were avoiding him, and so he swore to ‘never speak ill of another human again.’  He stayed true to that promise and became on of the greatest statesmen the world has ever known.  I wanted that, and wanted a blog to my forum.

I started this blog and started talking to my conservative friends.  I then opened a twitter account and started following people, chiming in whenever a story or link spoke to me.  However, I soon found myself denigrating people I disagreed with and being hateful in thought and response.  I am a failure!

I have always been able to accept my shortcomings, and have also been quick to grow from my mistakes;  but this really hurt me.  I really want to have honest, yet respectful conversations with people of all stripes–yet I am not sure if I have the strength or willpower to keep it above the belt.  This made me step away from this blog for several days (weeks?).  To quote the sappy, hippie bumper sticker, I need to be the change I wish to see in the world.

Therefore, this is my promise to myself, and to anyone who honors me with a few seconds of attention.  I promise to strive to be statesmanlike in my writing, and I promise to take my time when responding to yours.  There are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who will toss grenades across the fence at one another.  If I do the same, I add nothing to the discourse.  I liken this effort to the truly great comedians who choose to work harder and develop their craft as family friendly art rather than take the easy, dirty, cheap f-bomb laden joke re-hash that dominates the scene.

I am not saying that I am better than the quick-witted, sharp-tongued writers/talkers out there.  I am saying that I want to work harder than I have been.  I want to have honest, open discussions where contributors leave  conversations feeling better about the world than when they entered them.  If you want the same, then I respectfully ask you to stay tuned and sharpen your pens (limber up your typing fingers…) If you think I’m a weak-spined sissy, then fu….wait…LOL…then I respectfully ask that you try–and we will see what happens.

Thanks so much to all who take the time to read this.  Let’s start asking each other some tough questions, shall we?

Escher’s Waterfall and Social Security

Posted: February 19, 2011 by benjiefrank in Uncategorized

So, how is this video supposed to start a discussion about Social Security, you ask?

Seems pretty obvious to me!  In this vid, the viewers are shown a ‘system’ where they can pour water into the wrong end and still get the desired result, even though the math proves over and over that it is impossible.  I invite comments defending or attacking my premise.


The Twitter Test

Posted: February 16, 2011 by benjiefrank in Uncategorized

Just wanted to check to see if the twitter link is working.  Testing!!!

Still workin…

Posted: February 14, 2011 by benjiefrank in Uncategorized

I just wanted to put a new post up quick…will be working up the rhetoric here shortly



Dead Fish Rombo…Humorist

Posted: February 13, 2011 by benjiefrank in Uncategorized


Follow this link to an article reporting Rombo’s promise to “Tackle” corruption.


’nuff sed.