"The Official Portrait of Miss InDiana"

"The Official Portrait of Miss InDiana"
aka "Miss Victory"

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Sage advice for republicans from the very republican bloggers at HOOSIER ACCESS

Last night's democratic sweep caused the guys over at Hoosier Access to offer sober advice to the members of their party. Here it is with HFFT comments appearing below:

1. t is not a good thing when the core of our party is not who picks our nominee

2. When we let the “country club” Republicans run the party, we lose

3. Running a campaign on the basis of “I’m not the other guy” is not effective

4. The American people have forgotten what the cost of big government is; they do not remember socialism and communism

4. We cannot rely on “disaffected” Democrats to bring in the vote for Republicans, they must be won

6. Scurrilous charges need to be answered

7. The Democrats ground game has caught up to the Republican ground game

8. Polling was largely correct

9. George W Bush was the gift that kept on giving to the Democrats

10. It will now be a huge challenge to regain control of “voting irregularities” as ACORN, etc. will be largely unchecked for at least two more years

11. We are no longer a racist country, right?

12. If you are going to mess up campaign finance, you might get burned by it

13. Indiana voters vote on personalities and not on ideas

14. Reapportionment and redistricting in 2011 will be critical for the future of governance

15. The reaction to this election is NOT to move to the left

Republican core values? Gee wouldn't that be to reduce the size and cost of government, to lower taxes, the rule of law, and adherence to the Constitution?
Or are republican core values about starting an illegal war, obeying your global Establishment Masters, forging runaway spending, getting fat at the taxpayer trough, warantless wire taps, serving lobbyists before taxpayers, and arrogant leadership?
Think back to the person who won the MSM internet polls by a landslide after the very first republican debates in 2007? Those were the polls that were yanked from existence almost immediately after they showed his sweeping popular appeal.
That person was Ron Paul.
If the Republican Party wants to find its soul it needs to acknowledge that its Masters (who control the MSM) refused to allow the very sober and articulate Ron Paul to compete on a level playing field. Instead, Dr. Paul was marginalized and labeled a kook.
Guess what, geniuses. That kook Ron Paul called the economic meltdown long before you realized it was lurking as the tsunami poised to devaste our nation's people.
Ron Paul knows what causes our failures and how to restore America. In fact, he tried to warn you all that the problems were coming and you ignored him and/or grouped him with the tin foil hat crowd.
The question is, do the Republicans have the will to force a Revolution within your own party?
Ron Paul can unite conservatives across all lines. And no other conservative but Ron Paul comes even close to having the ground breaking activist support in the streets like Obama employed to catapult his landslide victory last night. And no other conservative can raise the kind of money that Ron Paul can. You might not realize but Ron Paul activist cells still regularly meet across the country and can easily mobilize.
Ron Paul is how we get conservative values back into American policy. And until you move the Republican party into that direction, the third party will continue to pick off your dissatisfied, disillusioned, and betrayed thus leaving the GOP even more marginalized.


neal boortz says said...


What is clear is that the Republican Party has failed on so many levels. I'm not talking about John McCain, I'm talking about the Republican Party. A party that was supposed to reflect the Conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint, among others, got completely drunk with power. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

Republicans also failed to communicate a message that people could understand. Only in the last days, when Joe the Plumber arrived, did a light bulb flicker. But it shouldn't have taken one man in Ohio to do it. John McCain should have spent months hammering Obama's Marxist tendencies -- his 95% tax cut lies -- his cutting capital gains for small businesses. As a party Republicans failed to rally a base that reflected its core values. Maybe that is because those core values no longer exist for the Republicans in power. Just take a look at the past eight years. But somehow, before the next election, they must figure out which direction they want to take their party, and they must believe it, market it, and most importantly – live up to it.

If the Republicans don't learn from this, that is their own fault. They created Barack Obama. They created a Congressional Democrat majority. But they also have the power to re-create their party. Some pundits are worried that this "new direction" will be more socially Conservative. Perhaps that's exactly what we need! My preference would be to see a move back to basic principles of individualism, freedom, economic liberty, self sufficiency and pride in our Country ... with a highlight on individualism. Barack Obama is merely a continuation of the leftist war against the concept of the individual. Democrats look at us as tools ... tools to be used to create some sort of an egalitarian society. Can the Republicans make this point to the voters? Hint: Republicans need to look to the Libertarian Party for some ideas on how to promote the idea of individualism and fight the concept of the individual as government property.

glenn beck says said...

o this was the revolution but it was the revolution of the other side. The Democrats have now been fully coopted by the left. There is half of the nation that has moved to the socialist left. That's a bad thing. But the good thing is that now it is the right's turn to find out who they are. The reason why Obama has 62 million, that's not an insurmountable number. The reason why it's 62 million is because the left didn't have -- I mean, sorry. The right didn't have their stuff together. We don't even know who we are. And it's pretty hard to do. It's pretty hard to do when you've got a bunch of leaders in your own party that are pulling against each other. It is time for the voice of the American people, the voice of the conservatives to be heard. You are going to get a lot of pressure. You are going to have a lot of people saying, "No, no, no, we've got to move farther left, we've got to move farther left." No, we don't. No, we don't. That is exactly the move that the Republicans made with FDR and that's what gave the United States of America a 40-year lock on congress with the Democrats because the Me Too Republicans showed up.

Listen to what we're up against but listen to the reason why Obama -- when everybody says, "Oh, well, Obama won; it was a mandate." He won. He won resoundingly in the electoral college. But 55 million people rejected the redistribution handout politics of Obama. Obama won. Let's give him credit. Ran the most effective, most expensive political machine ever. But in order to win, look what it took. First Obama had to break one of his very first campaign promises to limit financing to $84 million. Instead he had to raise over $650 million. We don't know yet how many -- and we may never -- how much of that came from illegal donations. John McCain's campaign was limited to $84 million and many states he was outspent 5:1, and it was this close. And remember John McCain was one of the worst presidential candidates conservatives could have ever fielded. Not only was McCain outspent, Obama's unpaid television coverage was overwhelmingly positive. On the three network evening newscasts, 65% positive for Obama/Biden while coverage of McCain/Palin was 36%. And even though television companies readily accepted McCain's cash to air his campaign commercials, they didn't like the message. Between the end of the primaries and the end of October, network news broadcast 84 stories criticizing McCain ads and 32% had a negative tone towards Obama. Late night comedians targeted McCain/Palin for jokes, jabs, putdowns seven times more than Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Remember that to get elected, Obama had to publicly repudiate all of his past positions or at least give lip service on guns, abortion, illegal immigration, school vouchers. At least verbally Obama had to move to the center to these issues, on these issues to win. More proof that we are not the country of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. More proof. How many people say he's going to govern from the center, not from the left? I'm not saying that he would change how he feels on these issues or even how he'll vote on them or how he will act as a President but like Bill Clinton, he had to at least talk like a conservative during the campaign. Obama was the media candidate. He appeared on over 50 magazine covers. He was on the front cover of time over six times. What was the last magazine cover you saw John McCain on? Oh, I remember. It was the one where they had the photographer shoot him in bad light, intentionally make him look evil. Oh, and I remember Palin. The last one I saw was, oh, yeah, the one that wasn't air brushed and intentionally overexposed and cropped in so you could see every pore and flaw in her face.

Remember that John McCain was also not the choice of conservatives. He was the vote that was split between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. That is the only reason he was the candidate. The base was not enthusiastic about McCain. 26% said they were excited to vote for him. 26% said they were excited to vote for him. 39% said they were voting for him as the lesser of two evils. I told you ever since I started in America we don't elect people that we're voting against someone else by voting for them. You win by voting for one-someone. Among Obama supporters, 52% were excite to do vote for him. Only 14%, they were voting for him as the lesser of two evils. John McCain, not the standard bearer of conservative principles. Huh. Why vote for liberalism light when you can have a real socialist.

How many people voted for Obama that were like, "You know what, I mean, let's just go for it. He's really going to do it." McCain was not a conservative on illegal immigration. McCain was not a conservative on small government, the bailout, capitalism. The only thing he had a record on was earmarks. And America now knows earmarks are ridiculous. Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to everything else that's piling up. It was John McCain that lost last night, the values and the principles of Ronald Reagan's Republican party were not rejected because there was no candidate representing them. This election was not about values or social issues. Look at gay adoption. Look at gay marriage. Look at abortion. For the most part the traditional values, anything that was on a ballot that had traditional values at stake, the traditional values stood. Traditional marriage was upheld. Arizona rejected the weakening of its illegal immigration law. Do you remember the crowds that Sarah Palin drew, the enthusiasm that she generated? It took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan.

I give the same warning to the Democrats that the Republicans after George Bush in 9/11: Be careful how far you push this pendulum up because if you take this pendulum and try to swing it so far up, the pendulum always swings back. And when it does, it goes back as far, if not farther than you just swung it. That's what gave us Barack Obama. What gave us Barack Obama was the pushing of that pendulum so far, the wrapping of America in the flag and everything else and not really standing for anything. As they push this pendulum up, it's going to swing. Mark my words, Democrats, it will swing just as far the other way. And what I said was the danger after September 11th: You interject hunger and fear; that pendulum can stop and it depends on who's in power that grabs that pendulum. So while you may be happy today about Barack Obama, be careful what you do because we don't want an extremist on either end to grab the pendulum. We've got to bring the pendulum and stop it swinging so far and bring it closer to the center. We are not that different. We are not the country of Nancy Pelosi. We are not the country of Jerry Falwell. We're the country of Ronald Reagan. Remember the Ronald Reagan Democrats. That's who we are.

ron paul says said...

CNN: Whoever wins the presidency today, he will face a lot of challenges. With a look at some of the obstacles facing the next President I’m joined by former Republican presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul. He joins me from Clute, Texas this morning. Glad you’re up with us, great to see you this morning

Ron Paul: Thank you, thank you very much.

CNN: As we take a look at how things are shaping up today, what are you thinking of, what are some of the things that stick out in your mind today?

Ron Paul: Well, I think the obvious is, what’s it going to be like with the new president, because we are going to get a new president. But the old problems are still going to be there. We’re still going to have to deal with the Middle East. We have the policy now where we’re going into Syria, we’re going into Pakistan, we’re threatening Iran, we’re having bad conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, so, those problems are getting bigger by the day.

And also the financial situation is, you know, both candidates have supported the same old policy of pumping in 5 trillion dollars worth of new money, trying to prop up all the mistakes made over the last 20 or 30 years.

So, the American people have a lot to think about, and we do have a lot of concerns. Let’s hope things improve, but right now I don’t see any significant change in policy on the horizon.

CNN: Do you think that there’s a lot of promises that have to be made during an election cycle that one side, either gentleman, finally gets to the Oval Office, perhaps a lot of the things that have been promised aren’t necessarily going to be realistic to happen in this current environment?

Ron Paul: Well, I think that happens just about all the time. You noticed that neither candidate has talked about balancing the budget, but they sure have promised a lot of spending. No, nothing to be cut, spending is going to continue. And if deficits do matter, which I happen to believe, I mean, how can we expect any changes? Government is going to get bigger, more intrusive into our private lives, the foreign policy is going to remain the same, we’re gonna be the policeman of the world… So, really there’s no offer of solutions.

Obama talks about change, but what is he going to change? He and McCain agreed with the total bailout package, they don’t disagree on foreign policy, really, so the American people are going to be frustrated. They’re enthusiastic now and they’re hopeful and we all should be. But what’s going to happen after a month or two if each of these problems I’m talking about are much worse?

CNN: One of the things Congressman, as you talk a little about what we could see coming down the road, and whether things will change, there’s probably more of a chance of legislation at least being passed under an Obama administration if we do see the House and the Senate both go to a majority of Democrats, perhaps even a veto-proof majority.

And this is what former Senator Bob Kerrey wrote about this impact. He said,

“The primary threat to the success of a President Obama will come from some Democrats who, emboldened by the size of their Congressional majority, may try to kill trade agreements, raise taxes in ways that will destroy jobs, repeal the PATRIOT Act and spend and regulate to high heaven.”

Could single party rule actually be more detrimental to the country?

Ron Paul: Oh, I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. I think that’s one of the strongest arguments for voting for McCain. What this country needs is a little bit of gridlock on new legislation. You know, I think the only laws that we should be passing now, are laws that repeal legislation, repeal previous legislation, that’s what we need. So, no, I think it’s going to be sad if we don’t have any gridlock or any debate, I mean, if everything gets rubber-stamped, of course I wouldn’t mind a little bit of movement to get rid of the PATRIOT Act, that wouldn’t be too bad.

If they were doing the right things it wouldn’t be a problem, but right now there’s no evidence that we’re all of a sudden going to see a shift, that we’re going to see new policies, that we’re going to have a deep concern about the Constitution, that we’re going to talk about a non-interventionist foreign policy, that we’re going to talk about the Federal Reserve, the culprit in this whole financial mess. Nobody is talking about that, so, yes, I think if we rubber-stamp and see no gridlock and one party power I think it’s very bad for our country.

bobisimo said...

Not much of a comment from me here, but I think if Ron Paul had been supported by the Republican party the election may have been quite different. I don't know if Paul could have rallied the base as well as Obama, (I'll assume he could) but I think he certainly would have attracted a lot of the middle and third-party supporters. Maybe we'll see him again in 4 years.

Anonymous said...

As I've posted before, Ron Paul is an idiot whose name appeared on anti-Semitic and racist literature. He referred to the IRS as "the Gestapo," which is absolutely inappropriate in comparison to what the Gestapo really was.

Sing his praises all you want - he is an absolute moron, and this is one Republican who will never vote for him. Never.

Anonymous said...

Please cite proof of this racist and anti-semetic literature, don't just lash out with accusations.
At more than 60,000 pages of code that even the IRS agents don't understand, and the fact that cases in lower courts have been dismissed because the prosecutor could not show a law proving the taxes had to be paid, it would seem that the IRS is heavy handed. Having to offer up every detail of my personal financial life to a government bureaucracy (or face the threat of imprisonment) sure feels like gestapo like tactics to me.

Anonymous said...

First, there have been discussions on this very blog about those newsletters that went out, ostensibly written by others but with his name on them. I don't presume for a moment that he wrote them or that he feels that way, but they went out on HIS publications. I'll do some web searches and try to get you some specific examples. But those who have been following this blog over the past several months know of these things.

Second, the IRS is not the Gestapo, and such a reference is demeaning to victims of the Gestapo. I get the IRS is a travesty, but please - what it does is nowhere near the atrocities of humanity committed by the Gestapo.

Third, I agree with many of his ideas. But for this guy to say that on his first day as president he will abolish the IRS is just foolish - the president CAN'T do that. He may espouse many ideas I support (and in fact, he does), but he's just a moron. If you want those policies to prevail, you need to find someone to carry that message who doesn't seem like a loon.

Anonymous said...

The Israeli agency in charge of WTC security oversaw CDI, A Jewish owned demolitions company, plant explosives in the WTC towers which demolished WTC 1,2 & 7 and murdered thousands of innocent Americans.

The "attacks" more accurately called "demolitions" achieved dozens of goals some of which include the Jewish owner of WTC 1,2 & 7 receiving billions in insurance money, the American invasion of Iraq on behalf of Israel and last but not least a never ending and undefined "war on terror" that could be used against any enemy of Israel and its’ Antichrist leader who will soon appear.

Several Israeli Mossad agents were caught on 9/11 filming the planes crashing into WTC 1 and 2 and the controlled demolitions of the towers while DANCING WITH JOY and giving each other high fives. They were quietly spirited off to Israel without a trial.

One month after 9/11 - 2 Israeli Mossad agents were caught in Mexico planting bombs in the Mexican congress building to use as a false flag ops to blame on Al Qaeda. They were quietly spirited off to Israel without a trial.

On September 17, 2001 Bin Laden publicly announced that he did not have anything to do with 9-11. To this day the FBI “wanted poster” states that there is NO evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the 9-11 attacks.

Israeli based ODIGO txt message service was used to warn somebody in NY about the WTC attacks hours before any airliner took off.

All 9/11 Airports were serviced by One Israeli Owned Company.

Barbara Olsen’s alleged phone call to her husband (Pres. Bush’s soliciter General) from one of the planes stating that there were “Arab hijackers” has been proven to be a LIE and the entire DRAMA never happened. Her husband went on TV, within days of the attacks, with interviews detailing the story but has now changed his official position.

Neocon Jews in our Government orchestrated 9-11 so we would go overseas and kill Muslims on behalf of ISRAEL.

References :

Send this to everyone you know.


Question to anonymous...how does Obama sound anymore like a loon than the liars and thieves running things?

Ron Paul is the only true conservative in Congress.

Never forget, he was the ONE who called the economic crisis right long before it started. He was called a loon for doing that.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous with the 9/11 post above:

Your views are limited. 9/11 wasn't for the sake of Israel. Israel was created by the UN for the sake of disrupting the Middle East and ultimately breaking the back of nations under Islamic rule. By planting Israel among them, the campaign to castigate and alienate Islamic nations from the rest of the world began, using innocent and unsuspecting Jews as bait by telling them that Israel would be their safe haven.

Rather than saying that Israel was responsible for 9/11, a better and more accurate description would be to say that Israel colluded with the planners of 9/11. They provided the resources to carry off the plan - and many were caught, as our media reported during the maelstrom of activity on 9/11. Most of them were caught by law enforcement in New Jersey immediately after the attacks, but were ordered released by the State Attorney General - Chertoff, a dual US/Israeli citizen.

But - the attacks weren't for sake of Israel and Israeli policy. That's a popular falsehood among those who understand that 9/11 was an inside job. The primary benefit was to the ideological organizations who used the UN to create Israel in the first place. They need to eliminate Islamic governments in order to install governments who are sympathetic to accepting regional governance with non-secular leadership.

The Israeli's were used to accomplish this because American operatives wouldn't do it, and because Israeli operatives could be convinced that the subsequent US agression would provide greater security to Israel.

Israel didn't pull off 9/11. They were a participant. Which is why they now have us by the short hairs, and have managed to use their chief US asset to head the Democrat Congressional campaigning, to build a pro-war Democrat majority, and now to occupy the White House in control of the President.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is not a racist and if he was in any shape or form, I would never have given him an ounce of my energy supporting and endorsing him. Racism is rooted in collectivism whereby people attend themselves to be a part of a specific group. Individualism is the anti-collectivist ideology as believes people shall be judged by the content of their character--not the color of their skin or any other collectivist ideals.

The older I get, the more I realize how misinformed or confused people are about issues and I feel that this "Anonymous" soul is amongst the cesspool of many others who are quick to make a judgment and slow on taking time to analyze why people like Ron Paul are their real friends.

Like Ron Paul, I do not want to run anyone's lives and all I want to do is allow the Constitution to work as it's not just a 200+ year old document, it was created based out of thousands of years of history where countless people were destroyed by authoritarian measures...each based upon protecting the government, a certain class/group of people, or a particular religion. The logic and wisdom behind the Constitution is Liberty where each person is left to carve their own way in life and if they are harmed by another, to allow the tort and criminal system hold them accountable. In fact, these same people who blame capitalism for failed policies and ask for more regulation, they do not understand how we already have a self-regulating system in our nation and all we have to do is restore the Constitution as the mechanism to hold those accountable for harming others. The government's sole duty is to protect the liberties (property) of people...not redistribute them to the groups.

Wayne Kirk

Anonymous said...

Taxation is Theft
Redistribution is Theft
...Stealing is Wrong

President-elect Obama made several statements that alluded to the old false idealism of socialism which is based more upon the principles of interventionism or communism.

I recently watched a couple YouTube videos in which people were yelling at others because they labeled Mr. Obama as a socialist, but understanding the defined qualities of socialism/communism/interventionism, it means "control" of one's property through theft and "redistribution" of such property to another.

What does this mean?

Well, if you were a wealthy business owner and you made sound decisions over how you invested your money and because of your wise understanding of how money works, it grows and grows into a larger pile. Socialists believe that once a person achieves a certain size of money pile, they have the right to take a portion of that money and give it to someone who does not have much (redistribution). They see this as a fair way of treating others because the person who has all the money is most-likely greedy and doesn't care about the little poor man. This failed understanding cannot be more from the truth for the person who makes wise and practical decisions, they have a vested interest in watching the money grow which translates into more jobs, higher incomes, and thus, more products and services bought which makes society as a whole much wealthier. It is not logical for any person of great wealth to take their money and stick it under their mattress for the money will lose it's value due to inflation so the person who has the gold, understands that the best use of the money is to let it work for them by investing it in the stock market, property, and/or putting it into a bank account(which then offers banks liquidity to loan money and grow the overall wealth of society).

If money is taken from someone who has the ability to make the money grow and is given to someone who wastes it, then society as a whole is less profitable for we have lost the amount of money that can be invested and grown in the marketplace in return for immediate (consumerism) gratification.

One of the most common misconceptions is that the United States is a capitalist nation and I challenge anyone who feels this way to look up the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, to research our monetary system which is ran by the Federal Reserve, and to seek why nearly 60% of our income (property) is taken by taxation, then maybe the realization that we barely own 40% of our own property will sink in and someday we can work together to restore the true wisdom of a free society.

Wayne Kirk

Peggy Gravel said...

Why do you continue to post this anti-Semitic crap on your site when the site itself has been reported to the ADL for anti-Jewish caricatures? Do you have any honor at all? I guess that's a stupid question.


I'm the editor. My boyfriend is Jewish. (well actually we don't live together anymore, but it had nothing to do with him being jewish we still hang out together a every week).

The LAST thing I am is anti-semetic. I'll have you know I went to a Christian college and have no use for Christians that bomb abortion clinics or use Christ and the pulpit to steal the savings of elderly people either.

Anyway, the reason these opinions get published is because they are out there and this blog is not going to deny 1st Amendment freedom to ANYONE.

Why would you have someone's voice stamped out? Are you a fascist?

Please engage our readers in a discussion and use facts and documentation to refute that with which you disagree.

Don't you think it is childish to scream "racist" and report us as being defamatory because we allow free speech?

No one put a gun to your head and told you to come to this blog. You can leave any time.

You can also freely exercise YOUR free speech here and use facts to dispute what the anonymous poster alleges to be true.

Anonymous said...

Peggy - what anti-semitic material?

Is it anti-caucasian to say that European Catholics were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition? is it anti-asian to say that the Japanese planned and launched the attack on Pearl Harbor?

If it's anti-semitic to point to recorded facts revealing israeli complicity in the 9/11 attacks, then I don't want to hear anyone talking about Japanese involvement in Pearl Harbor. That's anti-Japanese. And the next time I hear someone complaining about the Mao Mao in Kenya I'll follow your example - the Mao Mao can't be discussed because it's hate speech.

That's the model that you're exhibiting, Peggy. "If anythin bad can be attributed to a group within a nation, it cannot be discussed because bringing up bad things is hate speech".

FYI - that's the kind of political correctness that originated in the communities of Stalinist Russia, where the residents couldn't say anything negative about the party or about party activities - no matter what the truth was - without facing persecution.

As a free and independent person and thinker, and as a respector of all cultures, peoples, and ethnic backgrounds, I refuse to be confined to "politically correct" terminologies when speaking about clear and evident, historically documented events that have a negative connotation towards a political entity - but have no negative connotation towards a religion or an ethnic group - except in the minds of those who choose to believe that if someone says one apple is bad, they mean that all of the rest must be bad as well.

That's called faulty and flawed logic. When I see it applied in an attempt to stifle honest, truthful, and rational discourse, I'll call it out every time.

FYI - I completely and wholeheartedly support your efforts to stifle any hate speech or negative discourse that's directed towards the Jewish people or religion as a whole. I'd march for those kinds of protections. But when it comes to the policies and covert activities of a nation state (not a race, religion, or ethnicity), fair game is fair game. I'll point out corruption and deceptions with no reservation.

Also - reading back I see that the person who opened the conversation regarding Israel and 9/11 did indeed mention Jews. I can recognize your concern on that point. Mine was the follow-up post - the one that couldn't care less whether the perpetrators were white, black, blue, or yellow, Baptist, Bhuddist, Jewish, or Athiest. My only concern is to prevent them from getting away with it.

Anonymous said...

I personally agree with what Melyssa just expressed about providing a means to argue your points with analysis. I've also found those who resort to name calling are ones who do not offer an intelligent response so they reduce themselves into blanket statements and allegations that detract from the issue as a whole. The blessing here for us is that when a person resorts to this nonsense chatter, it helps us all have a better understanding into their character.

Wayne Kirk