Cracks me up when he kinda freaks out there, hollering and saying he'd vote for Elmer Fudd if he were going up against Obama. Utter exasperation on Rush's part. I don't see him get like that very often.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Rush: "Obama's Destroying the Freaking Country!"
Rush defends Palin and expresses his frustration with the media and the conservative intellectual elite.
Cracks me up when he kinda freaks out there, hollering and saying he'd vote for Elmer Fudd if he were going up against Obama. Utter exasperation on Rush's part. I don't see him get like that very often.
Cracks me up when he kinda freaks out there, hollering and saying he'd vote for Elmer Fudd if he were going up against Obama. Utter exasperation on Rush's part. I don't see him get like that very often.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Don't Give Up
Via the LOTUS:
---------
It may be tempting to feel worn down as we take one step after another towards the “fundamental transformation of America” that Barack Obama promised. But we mustn’t let our energy be sapped, even in the face of the mind-boggling leap the Obama Administration just took that fundamentally shifts us towards more reliance on foreign energy sources. Hang on to your hat and take a look at this.
Months ago I discussed Washington’s decision to allow U.S. dollars to flow to Brazil for that nation’s off-shore oil drilling projects, while D.C.’s attitude towards America’s own offshore developments appeared less-than-enthusiastic. We gained hope though when our President promised in his State of the Union address that he’d be “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”
Most of us optimistically assumed that “making tough decisions” meant allowing at least some offshore drilling. In fact, on national television that night I said that the President deserved kudos for acknowledging our need for domestic energy development in his speech.
Turns out that was just more drilling doublespeak: America has been snookered again.
While everyone has been focused on Obamacare, the Obama administration took advantage of America’s distraction and quietly said that it’s planning to place a hold on offshore drilling on the outer continental shelf until at least 2012.
At a time when our country is desperate for job growth, deficit reduction, and energy independence, it’s simply astonishing that the administration refuses to allow additional offshore drilling, even while supporting energy development in foreign countries.
According to a study by the American Energy Alliance, opening the OCS to drilling could create as many as 1.2 million new jobs and add hundreds of billions of dollars annually to the US economy. Those are real American jobs – and great American opportunities – that can’t be outsourced.
Offshore drilling would provide billions in revenue for our states, allowing them to reduce their budget deficits without raising taxes.
It would help reduce our trade deficit, which spikes with each rise in the price of oil because we’re so reliant on foreign sources of energy. And because we have some of the best environmental standards in the world, we should be drilling for our own oil instead of buying it from countries with less stringent standards.
When the Obama Administration first delayed offshore leasing on the OCS to allow for “an extended public comment period,” the comments it received reflected what all the polling tells us – that Americans overwhelmingly support offshore drilling. (Curiously, those pro-drilling findings weren’t heavily publicized by the Administration and the press.)
Americans understand that a true “all-of-the-above” approach to energy independence must include responsible development of our conventional resources. Even as we develop alternative energy sources, we’ll still rely on oil and gas for decades to come. If we don’t drill for it here, then we’ll just have to keep buying it from others.
Using executive power to lock up energy resources ignores the will of the American people who want to develop those resources and know that we can do so in an environmentally responsible manner.
Ignoring the American people is never good politics, but whether it’s energy independence or health care, our leadership in Washington is tone deaf to the commonsense solutions that Americans want.
Watching this potentially earth-shattering energy policy decision made quietly while health care transformation distracts us, it makes one wonder what else our politicians are up to.
An old trick is to intentionally consume attention with a “crisis” so as to sap the public’s energy, and then to conveniently push through rash measures that would receive great scrutiny at any another time. Remember Rahm Emanuel’s Saul Alinsky-style of political operation: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
America, we must resolve to stay engaged in what our politicians are doing. Don’t get tired and give up. All political power is inherent in the people.
America can only be transformed into something unrecognizable if we get so tired that we give up our political power and close our eyes to what is going on. Find the energy to stand for what you know is right, including supporting leaders who don’t engage in energy policy doublespeak.
- Sarah Palin
---------
It may be tempting to feel worn down as we take one step after another towards the “fundamental transformation of America” that Barack Obama promised. But we mustn’t let our energy be sapped, even in the face of the mind-boggling leap the Obama Administration just took that fundamentally shifts us towards more reliance on foreign energy sources. Hang on to your hat and take a look at this.
Months ago I discussed Washington’s decision to allow U.S. dollars to flow to Brazil for that nation’s off-shore oil drilling projects, while D.C.’s attitude towards America’s own offshore developments appeared less-than-enthusiastic. We gained hope though when our President promised in his State of the Union address that he’d be “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”
Most of us optimistically assumed that “making tough decisions” meant allowing at least some offshore drilling. In fact, on national television that night I said that the President deserved kudos for acknowledging our need for domestic energy development in his speech.
Turns out that was just more drilling doublespeak: America has been snookered again.
While everyone has been focused on Obamacare, the Obama administration took advantage of America’s distraction and quietly said that it’s planning to place a hold on offshore drilling on the outer continental shelf until at least 2012.
At a time when our country is desperate for job growth, deficit reduction, and energy independence, it’s simply astonishing that the administration refuses to allow additional offshore drilling, even while supporting energy development in foreign countries.
According to a study by the American Energy Alliance, opening the OCS to drilling could create as many as 1.2 million new jobs and add hundreds of billions of dollars annually to the US economy. Those are real American jobs – and great American opportunities – that can’t be outsourced.
Offshore drilling would provide billions in revenue for our states, allowing them to reduce their budget deficits without raising taxes.
It would help reduce our trade deficit, which spikes with each rise in the price of oil because we’re so reliant on foreign sources of energy. And because we have some of the best environmental standards in the world, we should be drilling for our own oil instead of buying it from countries with less stringent standards.
When the Obama Administration first delayed offshore leasing on the OCS to allow for “an extended public comment period,” the comments it received reflected what all the polling tells us – that Americans overwhelmingly support offshore drilling. (Curiously, those pro-drilling findings weren’t heavily publicized by the Administration and the press.)
Americans understand that a true “all-of-the-above” approach to energy independence must include responsible development of our conventional resources. Even as we develop alternative energy sources, we’ll still rely on oil and gas for decades to come. If we don’t drill for it here, then we’ll just have to keep buying it from others.
Using executive power to lock up energy resources ignores the will of the American people who want to develop those resources and know that we can do so in an environmentally responsible manner.
Ignoring the American people is never good politics, but whether it’s energy independence or health care, our leadership in Washington is tone deaf to the commonsense solutions that Americans want.
Watching this potentially earth-shattering energy policy decision made quietly while health care transformation distracts us, it makes one wonder what else our politicians are up to.
An old trick is to intentionally consume attention with a “crisis” so as to sap the public’s energy, and then to conveniently push through rash measures that would receive great scrutiny at any another time. Remember Rahm Emanuel’s Saul Alinsky-style of political operation: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
America, we must resolve to stay engaged in what our politicians are doing. Don’t get tired and give up. All political power is inherent in the people.
America can only be transformed into something unrecognizable if we get so tired that we give up our political power and close our eyes to what is going on. Find the energy to stand for what you know is right, including supporting leaders who don’t engage in energy policy doublespeak.
- Sarah Palin
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Hillbuzz: Sarah the Liberal Slayer
"One woman, in her generation, called to stand up to the forces of chaos and destruction..."By the Boyz of Hillbuzz:
----------
The Slayer Comeths.
Here’s a blurb from a reader, lifted from The Hill:
From the Hill:
The Vichy Republicans: Striving for mediocrity …
By Bernie Quigley – 03/02/10 06:55 AM ET
The New York Times’s venomous and possibly deranged Frank Rich, who associated Sarah Palin with terrorism in his Sunday column this week, borrows from his previous archrival George Will in the claim that the White She Devil is a critter from hell and anyway, she will never be elected.
While Letterman is suddenly hugging up to Mitt Romney as his alter ego in L.A., Jay Leno restarts again on a positive note with a visit by the White She Devil, the Wolf Girl Incarnate, the Slayer, the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. But what is most telling comes up in Texas in the middle, where the Romney team, including Cheney, H.R. Bush, Boy George’s proxy Karen Hughes and Karl Rove, has lined up to take out Perry in his primary race against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. White She Devil supports Perry.
Interesting that key liberal opinion makers Rich and Letterman seek and find traditional enemies Romney and Will to face down that force of nature which is Sarah Palin. No surprise, but troubling, as it was David Letterman who first institutionalized disgrace and slander and character assassination of the most odious and un-American and probably libelous sort in referring to the vice presidential candidate as “a slut” and suggesting her underage daughter was raped between innings at a baseball game.
Romney and Will must recognize that they are understood and utilized here as expedients and weaklings willing to appease and be used by their extremist and very erratic liberal hosts as proxies in opposition to their own team; presumably their own kind. Like Leval and Petain. Call these now the Vichy Republicans.
Perry’s victory tomorrow will be overwhelming, with Gov. Palin’s endorsement, and Perry and Palin will bring a new face to American politics. In an innovative turn, Perry has refused endorsements of the mainstream newspapers, tools of tools like Will, Letterman and Rich, the mainstream mediocrity which is the two dominant parties and their fawning MSM acolytes, pulling out all the stakes now to defeat Perry and Palin.
But a harbinger of Democratic future is seen in the campaign video of Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in his primary challenge against Sen. Blanche Lincoln. As images fade to black, it can’t go unnoticed that Halter exits scene getting into a pickup truck.
Visit Mr. Quigley’s website at http://quigleyblog.blogspot.com.
********
You know, it didn’t occur to us until reading this, but Sarah Heath Palin really is THE SLAYER.
One woman, in her generation, called to stand up to the forces of chaos and destruction and save this country from the terrible fate the Left plots for it.
What’s interesting is that Palin is being attacked by the Left with full-force, but is also being attacked by the “Vichy Repulicans”, oh they of the milquetoast, cucumber and mayonnaise Wonderbread sandwiches, with their burning desire for mediocrity and perpetual love of losing national elections.
Sarah Palin scares the living Hellmann’s out of these people.
We kind of love that.
If you love it, too, then you need to help us form a Scooby Gang to support Palin, our Slayer, and give her the backup she needs to save not just Sunnydale, but the whole country as we know it.
We’re going to see her again in April, so we’ll tell her all this ourselves in person, but when Sarah Palin announces her presidential run, we plan on being all-in for her. To do that successfully, we need to start laying the foundation and doing the prep work now…because both the MSM and DNC elite colluded to destroy Hillary Clinton’s presidential run in 2008. Now, it seems the MSM and RNC elite are joining forces to do the same thing to Sarah Palin in 2012.
We can’t let this happen to another woman.
Not on our watch.
Not to The Slayer.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Obama a Marxis-Leninist in Occidental College
A guy who knew Obama when he was attending Occidental College talks to Breitbart tv B-cast. I normally don't post things on Obama, but this was very interesting:
Monday, February 1, 2010
Mama Grizzly Eats Fish
Rahm "Soon-to-be-Dead" Fish practically tries to be dinner.The newly-released mind-boggling, record-smashing $3,400,000,000,000 federal budget invites plenty of opportunity to debate the merits of incurring more and more debt that will drown the next generation of Americans. Never has it been possible to spend your way out of debt. So... let the debate begin.
Included in the debate process will be opportunities for our president to deliberate internally the wisdom of this debt explosion, along with other economic, military and social issues facing our country. Our president will discuss these important issues with Democrat leaders and those within his inner circle.
I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts. Yes, Rahm is known for his caustic, crude references about those with whom he disagrees, but his recent tirade against participants in a strategy session was such a strong slap in many American faces that our president is doing himself a disservice by seeming to condone Rahm’s recent sick and offensive tactic.
The Obama Administration’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling them, “F---ing retarded,” according to several participants, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.
Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.
A patriot in North Andover, Massachusetts, notified me of Rahm’s “retarded” slam. I join this gentleman, who is the father of a beautiful child born with Down Syndrome, in asking why the Special Olympics, National Down Syndrome Society and other groups condemning Rahm’s degrading scolding have been completely ignored by the White House. No comment from his boss, the president?
As my friend in North Andover says, “This isn’t about politics; it’s about decency. I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better... Have you no sense of decency, sir?”
Mr. President, you can do better, and our country deserves better.
- Sarah Palin
Thursday, January 28, 2010
KOTUS Uses LOTUS to Slam TOTUS
Sorry for the cheesy headline. :)
The Kickboxer of the United States hammers the President in a new Facebook note:
The Credibility Gap -
While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.
Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.
He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”
He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.
He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.
Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.
He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.
He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.
He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending.
The Kickboxer of the United States hammers the President in a new Facebook note:
The Credibility Gap -
While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.
Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.
He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”
He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.
He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.
Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.
He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.
He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.
He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending.
The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.
He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.
He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?
He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases.
If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.
He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?
Despite speaking for an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?
In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.
Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.
Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.
He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office.
He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.
He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?
He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases.
If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.
He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?
Despite speaking for an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?
In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.
Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.
Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.
He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office.
We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.
Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.
- Sarah Palin
----------------
I am honest-to-goodness speechless. Wow. Just, wow.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
POW! Obama's Gonna Hurt Tomorrow
The Kickboxer in Chief leaves Obama dazed on the mat.Mr. President: Please Try, "I'm Listening, People," Instead of "Listen Up, People!" -
We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.
Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.
Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope.
Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.
Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more?
Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.
Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.
More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand?
The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?
Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered.
We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.
- Sarah Palin
---------------
That had all the punch of another speech. Hmmmm. What one was it?.....
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Welcome to 2010 - It's War, Not a Crime Spree
Welcome to 2010. A year of Congressional races and comeupances; of the storm that is Sarah Palin, and the blooming of the Tea Party movement.The LOTUS kicks off the year with a scolding for President Obama:
It’s War, not a Crime Spree -
President Obama’s meeting with his top national security advisers does nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our nation’s security. That’s what happened in the 1990s and we saw the result on September 11, 2001.This is a war on terror not an “overseas contingency operation.” Acts of terrorism are just that, not “man caused disasters.” The system did not work. Abdulmutallab was a child of privilege radicalized and trained by organized jihadists, not an “isolated extremist” who traveled to a land of “crushing poverty.” He is an enemy of the United States, not just another criminal defendant.
It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a common criminal. Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda rights. President Obama’s advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing to agree to a plea bargain – pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a suicide bomber.John Brennan, the President’s top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely claimed “there are no downsides or upsides” to treating terrorists as enemy combatants. That is absurd. There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals: terrorists invoke their “right” to remain silent and stop talking. Terrorists don’t tell us where they were trained, what they were trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with.
Giving foreign-born, foreign-trained terrorists the right to remain silent does nothing to keep Americans safe from terrorist threats. It only gives our enemies access to courtrooms where they can publicly grandstand, and to defense attorneys who can manipulate the legal process to gain access to classified information.
President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on America. Now he must back off his reckless plan to close Guantanamo, begin treating terrorists as wartime enemies not suspects alleged to have committed crimes, and recognize that the real nature of the terrorist threat requires a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor.
- Sarah Palin
It's even better when Tammy Bruce reads it:
I do believe that I am grinning from ear to ear:)
I apologize for being distracted lately by the Bristol/Levi custody battle and other things. When nothing's going on I tend to track down the rabbit trails. But the lull is finally over, and the two sides now reengage. As far as the custody issue is concerned, I leave it to the court. Leaving Levi's publicity seeking aside, it might actually be better for Sarah if Levi is successful in obtaining joint custody. We'll address the fallout as those issues arise.
Leaving all of that sideline stuff on the sidelines, we press forward into a new year and onto a new front. Among other things, Obama is missing the Iranian Revolution; he is saying "now you stop that now" to the terrorists before retreating back to his golf course to suck his thumb. It is time to take this country back. It is time for some courage. It is time to remind ourselves who we are.
No more hangover from the 2008 election - this is a new year; a new war; a new beginning. And we are going to be led into battle by a general who has spent the last year and half learning how to weather the storm. Thank you, libs for providing the boot camp.
I don't know about you, but I feel good:)
Monday, December 21, 2009
The "Death Panel" Lie
I was reading one media outlet's version of events - "There is no language in the bill setting up death panels..."
I swear, it's like beating your head against a brick wall. That's like if they came out after Churchill's Iron Curtain comments and said, "That's just ridiculous. There is no thousand mile curtain made of iron blocking off the Soviets from the rest of the world. What a liar!"
Grrrrrrrrrrrr.....I mean she put it quotation marks, for Pete's sake....(mumble, grumble).
How do you even respond to such ignorance? Can these people not think beyond the end of their noses? I can't even address it anymore. To borrow a Glenn Beck phrase, blood shoots out of my eyes. So I'll let Levin and Rush do the talking for me. These clips are flashbacks from when this issue was still hot:
And while we're on the subject of lies, how about the idea that this health care bill will reduce the deficit? How about any number of times that the actual President of the United States has lied right through his teleprompter-teeth?
The public option as such isn't in the current version of the bill anymore, but the system they've got set up to replace it is arguably worse. Oh, well. Let's ignore that and bash Sarah Palin, shall we?
How about a few gaffes to leave us all on a happy, fun note:
I swear, it's like beating your head against a brick wall. That's like if they came out after Churchill's Iron Curtain comments and said, "That's just ridiculous. There is no thousand mile curtain made of iron blocking off the Soviets from the rest of the world. What a liar!"
Grrrrrrrrrrrr.....I mean she put it quotation marks, for Pete's sake....(mumble, grumble).
How do you even respond to such ignorance? Can these people not think beyond the end of their noses? I can't even address it anymore. To borrow a Glenn Beck phrase, blood shoots out of my eyes. So I'll let Levin and Rush do the talking for me. These clips are flashbacks from when this issue was still hot:
And while we're on the subject of lies, how about the idea that this health care bill will reduce the deficit? How about any number of times that the actual President of the United States has lied right through his teleprompter-teeth?
The public option as such isn't in the current version of the bill anymore, but the system they've got set up to replace it is arguably worse. Oh, well. Let's ignore that and bash Sarah Palin, shall we?
How about a few gaffes to leave us all on a happy, fun note:
Monday, December 14, 2009
America Under Barack Obama
Great interview with Nat Hentoff by John W. Whitehead found here. I don't agree with everything in it. For example, while I don't believe that Bush was evil, I was never under the illusion that he was remotely conservative. He was just better than any of the alternatives. And I don't believe he was ruled by Cheney:
----------------
....A self-described uncategorizable libertarian, Hentoff adds he is also a “Jewish atheist, civil libertarian, pro-lifer.” Accordingly, he has angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the trouble it stirred up. For instance, when he announced his opposition to abortion he alienated numerous colleagues, and his outspoken denunciation of President Bill Clinton only increased his isolation in liberal circles (He said that Clinton had "done more harm to the Constitution than any president in American history," and called him "a serial violator of our liberties.")......
John W. Whitehead: When Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2005, he introduced a bill to limit the Patriot Act. Now that he is president, he has endorsed the Patriot Act as is. What do you think happened with Obama?
Nat Hentoff: I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system. If the American people have their health care paid for by the government, depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives are worth living much longer.
[Hmmmmm, can you say, "Death Panels?" Moving on....]
In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore? Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though he promised not to.
So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a very dangerous mindset for a president to have.
JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?
NH: Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense, "evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing weakens the Constitution.
In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of everything we do on the phone and on the internet.
Obama has done nothing about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it. He has absolutely no judicial supervision of all of this. So all in all, Obama is a disaster.
JW: Obama is not reversing the Bush policies as he promised. But even in light of this, many on the Left are very, very quiet about Obama. Why is that?
NH: I am an atheist, although I very much admire and have been influenced by many traditionally religious people. I say this because the Left has taken what passes for their principles as an absolute religion. They don't think anymore. They just react. When they have somebody like Obama whom they put into office, they believed in the religious sense and, of course, that is a large part of the reason for their silence on these issues. They are very hesitant to criticize Obama, but that is beginning to change. Even on the cable network MSNBC, some of the strongest proponents of Obama are now beginning to question, if I may use their words, their "deity."
JW: Is the so-called health commission that you referred to earlier what some people are referring to as death panels? Is that too strong a word?
NH: That term was used with hyperbole about the parts of the health care bill where doctors are mandated, if people are on Medicare and of a certain age or in serious physical condition, to counsel them on their end-of-life alternatives. I don't believe that was a death panel. It was done to get the Medicare doctors to not spend too much money on them.
[Wait, how is that not a death panel? I agree that end-of-life counseling is not the be-all end-all of the death panel issue (I was an early advocate that Palin expand the argument beyond that one clause), but it's still euthanasia by default.]
The death panel issue arose with Tom Daschle, who was originally going to be the Health Czar. Daschle became enamored with the British system and wrote a book about health care, which influenced President Obama.
In England, you have what I would call government-imposed euthanasia. Under the British healthcare system, there is a commission that decides whether or not, based on your age and physical condition, the government should continue to pay for your health. That leads to the government not doing it and you gradually or suddenly die. The present Stimulus Bill sets up the equivalent commission in the United States similar to that which is in England.
The tipoff was months ago on the ABC network. President Obama was given a full hour to describe and endorse his health plan. A woman in the audience asked Obama about her mother. Her mother was, I believe, 101 years old and was in need of a certain kind of procedure. Her doctor didn't want to do it because of her age. However, another doctor did and told this woman there is a joy of life in this person. The woman asked President Obama how he would deal with this sort of thing, and Obama said we cannot consider the joy of life in this situation. He said I would advise her to take a pain killer. That is the essence of the President of the United States.
JW: Do you think Obama is shallow?
NH: It's much worse than that. Obama has little, if any, principles except to aggrandize and make himself more and more important. You see that in his foreign policy. Obama lacks a backbone—both a constitutional backbone and a personal backbone. This is a man who is causing us and will cause us a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally. I say personally because I am 84 years old, and this is the first administration that has scared me in terms of my lifespan.
JW: But he is praised for his charisma and great smile. He can make people believe things just by his personality.
NH: That was a positive factor in his election. A good many people voted for Obama, and I'm not only talking about the black vote. A lot of people voted for Obama because of our history of racial discrimination in this country. They felt good even though they didn't really know much about him and may have had some doubts. But at least they showed the world we could elect a black president. And that is still part of what he is riding on. Except that, too, is diminishing. In the recent Virginia election, the black vote diminished. Now why was that? I think a lot of black folks are wondering what this guy is really going to do, not only for them but for the country. If the country is injured, they will be injured. That may be sinking in.
JW: One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among African-Americans.
NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual, the people who are poorest—the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people—are going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable. I can't think of a single area where Obama is not destructive.
JW: A lot of people we represent and I talk to feel that their government does not hear them, that their representatives do not listen to them anymore. As a result, you have these Tea Party protests which the Left has criticized. What do you think of the Tea Party protests?
NH: I spent a lot of time studying our Founders and people like Samuel Adams and the original Tea Party. What Adams and the Sons of Liberty did in Boston was spread the word about the abuses of the British. They had Committees of Correspondence that got the word out to the colonies. We need Committees of Correspondence now, and we are getting them. That is what is happening with the Tea Parties.
I wrote a column called "The Second American Revolution" about the fact that people are acting for themselves as it happened with the Sons of Liberty which spread throughout the colonies. That was a very important awakening in this country. A lot of people in the adult population have a very limited idea as to why they are Americans, why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights.
JW: Less than 3% of high school students can pass the immigration test while over 90% of people from foreign countries can pass it. The questions are simple—such as, "What is the supreme law of the land?" or "Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?" Civic education in the United States is basically dead.
NH: I have been in schools around the country, and I have written on education for years. Once, I was once doing a profile on Justice William Brennan and I was in his chambers, and Brennan asked, "How do we get the words of the Bill of Rights into the lives of the students?" Well, it is not difficult. You tell them stories. When I speak to students, I tell them why we have a First Amendment. I tell them about the Committees of Correspondence. I tell them how in a secret meeting of the Raleigh Tavern in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who did not agree with each other, started a Committee of Correspondence.
Young people get very excited when they hear why they are Americans. It is not hard to do. We hear talk now about reforming public education. There are billions of dollars at stake for such a reform. But I have not heard Arne Duncan, who is the U.S. Education Secretary, mention once the civic illiteracy in the country.
JW: Adults are constitutionally illiterate as well.
NH: A few years ago, I was lecturing at the Columbia Journalism School of Education. I asked them about what was happening to the Fourth Amendment. I said, "By the way, do you know what is in the Fourth Amendment?" One student responded, "Is that the right to bear arms?" It's hard to believe these are bright students.
JW: I ask law students who attend our Summer Internship Program to name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. I have yet to find one who can.
NH: That is a stunner.
JW: You lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s. Is it worse now than it was then?
NH: McCarthy's regime was ended by Senators who realized that he had gone too far. What we have now may be more insidious. What we have now in America is a surveillance society. We have no idea how much the government knows and how much the CIA even knows about average citizens. The government is not supposed to be doing this in this country. They listen in on our phone calls. I am not exaggerating because I have studied this a long time. You have to be careful about what you do, about what you say, and that is more dangerous than what was happening with McCarthy, but the technology the government now possesses is so much more insidious.
JW: You don't sound very optimistic.
NH: If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson were brought back to life and they looked at television and read the papers, they would not recognize the country.
The media has been very bad about informing us about what is going on. They focus on surface things. They do not focus enough on the fact that the Fourth Amendment is on life support and that we need a return to transparency in government. The media ignores what is really going on.
But I am optimistic. I have to be optimistic, as I know you are. That is why you keep writing and keep doing what you do. You have to do this because we have been through very dark periods before. There are enough people who are starting to be actively involved that we can turn things around. And we need to encourage others to become involved.
----------------
....A self-described uncategorizable libertarian, Hentoff adds he is also a “Jewish atheist, civil libertarian, pro-lifer.” Accordingly, he has angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the trouble it stirred up. For instance, when he announced his opposition to abortion he alienated numerous colleagues, and his outspoken denunciation of President Bill Clinton only increased his isolation in liberal circles (He said that Clinton had "done more harm to the Constitution than any president in American history," and called him "a serial violator of our liberties.")......
John W. Whitehead: When Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2005, he introduced a bill to limit the Patriot Act. Now that he is president, he has endorsed the Patriot Act as is. What do you think happened with Obama?
Nat Hentoff: I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system. If the American people have their health care paid for by the government, depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives are worth living much longer.
[Hmmmmm, can you say, "Death Panels?" Moving on....]
In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore? Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though he promised not to.
So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a very dangerous mindset for a president to have.
JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?
NH: Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense, "evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing weakens the Constitution.
In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of everything we do on the phone and on the internet.
Obama has done nothing about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it. He has absolutely no judicial supervision of all of this. So all in all, Obama is a disaster.
JW: Obama is not reversing the Bush policies as he promised. But even in light of this, many on the Left are very, very quiet about Obama. Why is that?
NH: I am an atheist, although I very much admire and have been influenced by many traditionally religious people. I say this because the Left has taken what passes for their principles as an absolute religion. They don't think anymore. They just react. When they have somebody like Obama whom they put into office, they believed in the religious sense and, of course, that is a large part of the reason for their silence on these issues. They are very hesitant to criticize Obama, but that is beginning to change. Even on the cable network MSNBC, some of the strongest proponents of Obama are now beginning to question, if I may use their words, their "deity."
JW: Is the so-called health commission that you referred to earlier what some people are referring to as death panels? Is that too strong a word?
NH: That term was used with hyperbole about the parts of the health care bill where doctors are mandated, if people are on Medicare and of a certain age or in serious physical condition, to counsel them on their end-of-life alternatives. I don't believe that was a death panel. It was done to get the Medicare doctors to not spend too much money on them.
[Wait, how is that not a death panel? I agree that end-of-life counseling is not the be-all end-all of the death panel issue (I was an early advocate that Palin expand the argument beyond that one clause), but it's still euthanasia by default.]
The death panel issue arose with Tom Daschle, who was originally going to be the Health Czar. Daschle became enamored with the British system and wrote a book about health care, which influenced President Obama.
In England, you have what I would call government-imposed euthanasia. Under the British healthcare system, there is a commission that decides whether or not, based on your age and physical condition, the government should continue to pay for your health. That leads to the government not doing it and you gradually or suddenly die. The present Stimulus Bill sets up the equivalent commission in the United States similar to that which is in England.
The tipoff was months ago on the ABC network. President Obama was given a full hour to describe and endorse his health plan. A woman in the audience asked Obama about her mother. Her mother was, I believe, 101 years old and was in need of a certain kind of procedure. Her doctor didn't want to do it because of her age. However, another doctor did and told this woman there is a joy of life in this person. The woman asked President Obama how he would deal with this sort of thing, and Obama said we cannot consider the joy of life in this situation. He said I would advise her to take a pain killer. That is the essence of the President of the United States.
JW: Do you think Obama is shallow?
NH: It's much worse than that. Obama has little, if any, principles except to aggrandize and make himself more and more important. You see that in his foreign policy. Obama lacks a backbone—both a constitutional backbone and a personal backbone. This is a man who is causing us and will cause us a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally. I say personally because I am 84 years old, and this is the first administration that has scared me in terms of my lifespan.
JW: But he is praised for his charisma and great smile. He can make people believe things just by his personality.
NH: That was a positive factor in his election. A good many people voted for Obama, and I'm not only talking about the black vote. A lot of people voted for Obama because of our history of racial discrimination in this country. They felt good even though they didn't really know much about him and may have had some doubts. But at least they showed the world we could elect a black president. And that is still part of what he is riding on. Except that, too, is diminishing. In the recent Virginia election, the black vote diminished. Now why was that? I think a lot of black folks are wondering what this guy is really going to do, not only for them but for the country. If the country is injured, they will be injured. That may be sinking in.
JW: One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among African-Americans.
NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual, the people who are poorest—the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people—are going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable. I can't think of a single area where Obama is not destructive.
JW: A lot of people we represent and I talk to feel that their government does not hear them, that their representatives do not listen to them anymore. As a result, you have these Tea Party protests which the Left has criticized. What do you think of the Tea Party protests?
NH: I spent a lot of time studying our Founders and people like Samuel Adams and the original Tea Party. What Adams and the Sons of Liberty did in Boston was spread the word about the abuses of the British. They had Committees of Correspondence that got the word out to the colonies. We need Committees of Correspondence now, and we are getting them. That is what is happening with the Tea Parties.
I wrote a column called "The Second American Revolution" about the fact that people are acting for themselves as it happened with the Sons of Liberty which spread throughout the colonies. That was a very important awakening in this country. A lot of people in the adult population have a very limited idea as to why they are Americans, why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights.
JW: Less than 3% of high school students can pass the immigration test while over 90% of people from foreign countries can pass it. The questions are simple—such as, "What is the supreme law of the land?" or "Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?" Civic education in the United States is basically dead.
NH: I have been in schools around the country, and I have written on education for years. Once, I was once doing a profile on Justice William Brennan and I was in his chambers, and Brennan asked, "How do we get the words of the Bill of Rights into the lives of the students?" Well, it is not difficult. You tell them stories. When I speak to students, I tell them why we have a First Amendment. I tell them about the Committees of Correspondence. I tell them how in a secret meeting of the Raleigh Tavern in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who did not agree with each other, started a Committee of Correspondence.
Young people get very excited when they hear why they are Americans. It is not hard to do. We hear talk now about reforming public education. There are billions of dollars at stake for such a reform. But I have not heard Arne Duncan, who is the U.S. Education Secretary, mention once the civic illiteracy in the country.
JW: Adults are constitutionally illiterate as well.
NH: A few years ago, I was lecturing at the Columbia Journalism School of Education. I asked them about what was happening to the Fourth Amendment. I said, "By the way, do you know what is in the Fourth Amendment?" One student responded, "Is that the right to bear arms?" It's hard to believe these are bright students.
JW: I ask law students who attend our Summer Internship Program to name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. I have yet to find one who can.
NH: That is a stunner.
JW: You lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s. Is it worse now than it was then?
NH: McCarthy's regime was ended by Senators who realized that he had gone too far. What we have now may be more insidious. What we have now in America is a surveillance society. We have no idea how much the government knows and how much the CIA even knows about average citizens. The government is not supposed to be doing this in this country. They listen in on our phone calls. I am not exaggerating because I have studied this a long time. You have to be careful about what you do, about what you say, and that is more dangerous than what was happening with McCarthy, but the technology the government now possesses is so much more insidious.
JW: You don't sound very optimistic.
NH: If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson were brought back to life and they looked at television and read the papers, they would not recognize the country.
The media has been very bad about informing us about what is going on. They focus on surface things. They do not focus enough on the fact that the Fourth Amendment is on life support and that we need a return to transparency in government. The media ignores what is really going on.
But I am optimistic. I have to be optimistic, as I know you are. That is why you keep writing and keep doing what you do. You have to do this because we have been through very dark periods before. There are enough people who are starting to be actively involved that we can turn things around. And we need to encourage others to become involved.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Rundown
First up, hold the phone! The NY-23 race is not final after all:
The LOTUS had a busy day. Two posts. I'll put them at the bottom since they're pretty long. But here's a video Sarah linked to her Facebook a couple days ago:
In other news, Sarah reportedly threw Levi an olive branch in her interview with Oprah. Most likely she would rather the kid not destroy himself. Will he listen? It's up to him. I think he'll live to rue the day he ever listened to Rex and Tank.
That was part of the discussion in this Oprah interview preview:
And Palin was a topic of discussion for a good twelve minutes on Hannity tonight:
And O'Reilly is finally going to get her on his show. He's only been trying for over a year:
As for the stuff coming out on what's in Palin's book, I prefer to just wait for the real thing. Until November 17th, it's all gossip.
And someone made a video tribute called Palin Democrats Applaud the Last of the Great Democrats in the House:
Well, that's the Rundown. Now here's those LOTUS posts:
LOTUS #1: Pelosi "Health Plan" Should Be DOA:
We need to be vigilant in investigating the ramifications of the Pelosi Health Care Bill. Some provisions sound so outrageous as to be considered impossible to fathom, but they’re right there in the bill in black and white. For instance, page 297 of the bill explains the punishment for not purchasing government mandated health insurance. If you don’t buy what the government considers “acceptable health care coverage,” you’re going to be hit with a tax of at least 2.5% of your income. And if you don’t pay that new tax, you could be fined as much as $250,000 and sentenced to up to five years in prison.
But here’s the thing: they have to make the penalty for opting out very harsh in order to force us to buy coverage. The only way to keep this government run health care plan afloat is for everyone to buy into it – especially young and healthy people. That means that they will have to penalize citizens if we choose not to buy a plan that will cost a minimum of about $15,000 per family per year.
The bill that came out of the Senate last month – the Baucus Bill – does just the opposite. It calls for a much lighter penalty ($750 maximum) for people who don’t buy government approved health coverage, making it cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for the coverage. (And with a recession on, who can blame families for not wanting to pay $15,000 for a government mandated health care plan?)
But here’s the kicker: the bill also forces insurance companies to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Think about what that means. A lot of people – especially young and healthy people – will just pay the penalty instead of purchasing coverage because they’ll figure that it’ll always be there if they get sick, as government has promised. That’s what will happen, and when it does it will totally undermine the very concept of “insurance” – which is basically a group of people pooling their resources over time to cover themselves for a rainy day, paying while they’re healthy so that they’re covered when they’re sick. Those who are healthy now pay for those who are sick. If your insurance pool only contains sick people, it’s a bust. And that’s what this government plan will be. Without all of those young and healthy people paying into the pool and defraying the costs, the government will have to pony up more and more money, and who knows how long the whole crazy plan will last before it goes broke – and our country with it!
That’s where we are with this bureaucratic mess: either the government penalizes people so harshly that they could be hit with huge taxes and even possible jail time, or the government makes the penalty a slap on the wrist and undermines the plan from the get-go. Forcing individuals to buy health insurance seems unconstitutional, yet Congress wants to foist it on us anyway. Proponents of government controlled health care will say, “But we’re made to buy car insurance and home insurance, what’s the difference with health insurance?” It’s apples and oranges. Auto insurance is a state law requirement, and people can always choose not to drive. Banks might require you to have home owner’s insurance, but again, you choose to own a home, just as you choose to drive. You have no choice at all when it comes to this federal government health care insurance mandate.
There are other ways to reform health care without violating our Constitution and our personal liberties. Let’s get back to discussing market-driven, patient-centered, result-driven solutions, like, for example, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, tackling existing government waste and fraud, and reforming medical malpractice laws (tort reform) to stop unwarranted lawsuits that force doctors to order unnecessary procedures just to cover themselves.
Please let your Senators know that the Pelosi Bill should be dead on arrival. Once we go down this big government path, it will be virtually impossible to reverse course. Let’s fight for the reform that makes sense for Americans before it’s too late.
- Sarah Palin
LOTUS #2: Thank you, Washington, for Requesting a Demonstrably Good Idea:
I commend the president for acknowledging today that “there are limits to what government can and should do” to ease our 10.2% unemployment rate – the highest it’s been since 1983. I also applaud his call for suggestions and expression of openness to considering “any demonstrably good idea.” Taking him at his word, I’d like to suggest this one: let’s learn from history and follow the example of the man who occupied the White House in 1983 and was able to transform an even worse recession than the one we’re currently experiencing into the largest peacetime economic expansion in American history.
When you realize the magnitude of President Reagan’s achievements, there is absolutely no reason why anyone would ignore his “demonstrably good” example. If you want real job growth, cut taxes – including capital gains taxes and small business payroll taxes – and slay the death tax once and for all. If you want to stimulate the economy and help poor and middle class families, cut payroll taxes so that more Americans can keep and invest more of what they earn.
If you want lasting economic expansion and prosperity, get the federal government’s budget under control. Instead of more pork-laden stimulus plans, let the free market correct itself. That’s what Reagan did, and history proves it worked.
In his comments today, the president honorably suggested that he welcomes our ideas on how to put America’s economy on the right track. But, there also seemed to be a suggested chastisement of the private sector’s efforts to right some economic wrongs when he said, “...small businesses and large firms...have not yet been willing to take the steps necessary to hire again.”
As business owners seek to expand, or just to keep doors open today, it’s not as if they are refusing to hire out of spite. Given a pro-private sector environment they will be only too happy to hire more people and grow their businesses. Perhaps if leadership in Washington reassured them by, for example, cutting tax burdens and making government more efficient, it would send our businesses a message that it’s safe and smart to expand today.
These are difficult times for so many Americans who are out of work. I implore our leaders to not threaten our economy’s job creators with increased taxes and job-killing schemes like cap-and-tax and the government health care takeover. Government needs to get out of their way and off their backs so that they can grow and hire again.
The lessons of history are clear. We’re blessed to have so many lessons from which to learn, and we’d be smart to emulate successes in America’s past. Our economic recovery decisions should be based on the same free market principles that Reagan employed. They work, history proves it, and I thank our president for asking for this input.
- Sarah Palin
Though Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman conceded and Democrat Bill Owens was sworn into Congress last week, the routine recanvassing of votes shows Owens' lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes, with about 5,800 absentee ballots received so far that have yet to be counted. The final outcome rests on uncounted absentee ballots, and more than 10,000 were sent out.I'm not getting my hopes up. Hoffman could very well still come up short, but if nothing else it looks like the margin will be closer than anyone thought. If Owens does turn out to be the loser....I don't know. We'll just have to wait and see.
The county Boards of Election are still recanvassing votes and it could be the end of November before a final count is certified. If the count overturns the election, Owens could be removed from office.
The LOTUS had a busy day. Two posts. I'll put them at the bottom since they're pretty long. But here's a video Sarah linked to her Facebook a couple days ago:
In other news, Sarah reportedly threw Levi an olive branch in her interview with Oprah. Most likely she would rather the kid not destroy himself. Will he listen? It's up to him. I think he'll live to rue the day he ever listened to Rex and Tank.
That was part of the discussion in this Oprah interview preview:
And Palin was a topic of discussion for a good twelve minutes on Hannity tonight:
And O'Reilly is finally going to get her on his show. He's only been trying for over a year:
As for the stuff coming out on what's in Palin's book, I prefer to just wait for the real thing. Until November 17th, it's all gossip.
And someone made a video tribute called Palin Democrats Applaud the Last of the Great Democrats in the House:
Well, that's the Rundown. Now here's those LOTUS posts:
LOTUS #1: Pelosi "Health Plan" Should Be DOA:
We need to be vigilant in investigating the ramifications of the Pelosi Health Care Bill. Some provisions sound so outrageous as to be considered impossible to fathom, but they’re right there in the bill in black and white. For instance, page 297 of the bill explains the punishment for not purchasing government mandated health insurance. If you don’t buy what the government considers “acceptable health care coverage,” you’re going to be hit with a tax of at least 2.5% of your income. And if you don’t pay that new tax, you could be fined as much as $250,000 and sentenced to up to five years in prison.
But here’s the thing: they have to make the penalty for opting out very harsh in order to force us to buy coverage. The only way to keep this government run health care plan afloat is for everyone to buy into it – especially young and healthy people. That means that they will have to penalize citizens if we choose not to buy a plan that will cost a minimum of about $15,000 per family per year.
The bill that came out of the Senate last month – the Baucus Bill – does just the opposite. It calls for a much lighter penalty ($750 maximum) for people who don’t buy government approved health coverage, making it cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for the coverage. (And with a recession on, who can blame families for not wanting to pay $15,000 for a government mandated health care plan?)
But here’s the kicker: the bill also forces insurance companies to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Think about what that means. A lot of people – especially young and healthy people – will just pay the penalty instead of purchasing coverage because they’ll figure that it’ll always be there if they get sick, as government has promised. That’s what will happen, and when it does it will totally undermine the very concept of “insurance” – which is basically a group of people pooling their resources over time to cover themselves for a rainy day, paying while they’re healthy so that they’re covered when they’re sick. Those who are healthy now pay for those who are sick. If your insurance pool only contains sick people, it’s a bust. And that’s what this government plan will be. Without all of those young and healthy people paying into the pool and defraying the costs, the government will have to pony up more and more money, and who knows how long the whole crazy plan will last before it goes broke – and our country with it!
That’s where we are with this bureaucratic mess: either the government penalizes people so harshly that they could be hit with huge taxes and even possible jail time, or the government makes the penalty a slap on the wrist and undermines the plan from the get-go. Forcing individuals to buy health insurance seems unconstitutional, yet Congress wants to foist it on us anyway. Proponents of government controlled health care will say, “But we’re made to buy car insurance and home insurance, what’s the difference with health insurance?” It’s apples and oranges. Auto insurance is a state law requirement, and people can always choose not to drive. Banks might require you to have home owner’s insurance, but again, you choose to own a home, just as you choose to drive. You have no choice at all when it comes to this federal government health care insurance mandate.
There are other ways to reform health care without violating our Constitution and our personal liberties. Let’s get back to discussing market-driven, patient-centered, result-driven solutions, like, for example, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, tackling existing government waste and fraud, and reforming medical malpractice laws (tort reform) to stop unwarranted lawsuits that force doctors to order unnecessary procedures just to cover themselves.
Please let your Senators know that the Pelosi Bill should be dead on arrival. Once we go down this big government path, it will be virtually impossible to reverse course. Let’s fight for the reform that makes sense for Americans before it’s too late.
- Sarah Palin
LOTUS #2: Thank you, Washington, for Requesting a Demonstrably Good Idea:
I commend the president for acknowledging today that “there are limits to what government can and should do” to ease our 10.2% unemployment rate – the highest it’s been since 1983. I also applaud his call for suggestions and expression of openness to considering “any demonstrably good idea.” Taking him at his word, I’d like to suggest this one: let’s learn from history and follow the example of the man who occupied the White House in 1983 and was able to transform an even worse recession than the one we’re currently experiencing into the largest peacetime economic expansion in American history.
When you realize the magnitude of President Reagan’s achievements, there is absolutely no reason why anyone would ignore his “demonstrably good” example. If you want real job growth, cut taxes – including capital gains taxes and small business payroll taxes – and slay the death tax once and for all. If you want to stimulate the economy and help poor and middle class families, cut payroll taxes so that more Americans can keep and invest more of what they earn.
If you want lasting economic expansion and prosperity, get the federal government’s budget under control. Instead of more pork-laden stimulus plans, let the free market correct itself. That’s what Reagan did, and history proves it worked.
In his comments today, the president honorably suggested that he welcomes our ideas on how to put America’s economy on the right track. But, there also seemed to be a suggested chastisement of the private sector’s efforts to right some economic wrongs when he said, “...small businesses and large firms...have not yet been willing to take the steps necessary to hire again.”
As business owners seek to expand, or just to keep doors open today, it’s not as if they are refusing to hire out of spite. Given a pro-private sector environment they will be only too happy to hire more people and grow their businesses. Perhaps if leadership in Washington reassured them by, for example, cutting tax burdens and making government more efficient, it would send our businesses a message that it’s safe and smart to expand today.
These are difficult times for so many Americans who are out of work. I implore our leaders to not threaten our economy’s job creators with increased taxes and job-killing schemes like cap-and-tax and the government health care takeover. Government needs to get out of their way and off their backs so that they can grow and hire again.
The lessons of history are clear. We’re blessed to have so many lessons from which to learn, and we’d be smart to emulate successes in America’s past. Our economic recovery decisions should be based on the same free market principles that Reagan employed. They work, history proves it, and I thank our president for asking for this input.
- Sarah Palin
Monday, November 9, 2009
Tammy Bruce on Afghanistan, Huckabee, and Palin
Tammy slams Obama and Huckabee while touting Palin. Good stuff:
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Apology Accepted - Wish We Could Help You
This in the Telegraph:Leaders of Iran's opposition movement are to make an unprecedented apology to the US on the 30th anniversary of the storming of the American embassy in Tehran.
In a gesture likely to provoke fury among hardliners in the Tehran regime, they will apologise on Wednesday for the hostage crisis that gripped the world for 444 days and led to a decisive break between Iran and the US, which is now routinely denounced as "the Great Satan".
Organisers of the Green Movement, the umbrella group that seeks to overturn the official result of the June presidential election, plan to use the official commemoration of the take over to make a fresh assault on the revolutionary credentials of Iran's leadership.
Mohsen Makhmalbaf, an exiled film-maker who spearheads the opposition campaign overseas, said Iranians should repudiate the events of 1979, when a group of pro-regime agitators took over the US embassy and held diplomats and other occupants.
"Thirty years ago in the turmoil of the revolutionary zeal an indefensible act of hostage taking was committed that the new generation of Iran are not proud of at all," he said. "We know very well how that deplorable action hurt the noble American people and how it led to three decades of unnecessary and painful bad relations between our two nations.
"Only a small and repressive minority who rule Iran today still insist on keeping Iran on a confrontation course with the US, Britain and the West and indeed they have now taken the Iranian people as hostage to their destructive policies."
Protesters plan to deliver a letter addressed to President Barack Obama to the US embassy in London and deliver commemorative plaques to American embassies across Europe.
Student's Day is marked every Nov 4 by large crowds outside the embassy building celebrating the takeover of the "Den of Spies" and shouting slogans such as "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
But an internet-based campaign has circulated a series of posters calling for infiltrators to denounce President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election. The president's challengers, including the former prime minister, Mir-Hussein Mousavi, have demanded a re-run of the election, which was marred by ballot tampering.
Iran has outlawed opposition rallies and the use of violence by regime supporters has quashed open shows of defiance. The hardline response ordered by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, resulted in the deaths of at least 30 protesters and the detention of thousands. An estimated 200 opposition activists remain behind bars and three have been sentenced to death.
But the tactic of using official holidays as cover has proved to be an effective means of challenging the regime. A day of solidarity with the Palestinians was similarly hijacked in September.
By expressing regret for the embassy takeover, the opposition is taking on the most cherished event in the first months of the Islamic Republic. The confrontation was to define the new state. Tehran's defiance of America means it remains incapable of resolving a stand-off over its secret nuclear programme.
Ahmad Reza Radan, the deputy chief of Iran's police, has warned that counter-demonstrations would be put down.
-----
All I can say is, my heart is with the freedom fighters in Iran, and I wish with all my heart we had a President with the backbone to support you.
Oh, for the days when we stood for something; for a time when we believed in more than just saying "nice doggie" to nutjobs like Ahmadinejad. We desperately need someone who will call a spade a spade. Ronald Reagan, where are you?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Only Sarah Palin Can Beat Barack Obama
We have to fight fire with fire. Nobody else can rival Obama for star power and grassroots committment. Obama is an unconventional politician; Sarah Palin is an unconventional politician. You're not going to pit a Romney against the Chicago Machine and get anywhere. You're sure not going to get anywhere with a Huckabee or a Pawlenty. Palin is the only real chance. Maybe she won't be able to pull it off either, but she's the only shot we've got.
Ever since she burst onto the scene in Dayton, Ohio, we have known that she is Obama's rival. The two worldviews of extreme leftism and the philosophies of our founding fathers collide in Obama and Palin. The political world will not be satisifed until these two go head to head and one comes out the final winner.
It's time to decide: will we stay by our founding principles, or abandon them once and for all?
That is the real decision. It was made in part in the election of 2008, although not completely because people didn't really know what they were getting into. By 2012, they will, and we can have the real showdown.
Anything short of that showdown will delay history. Obama vs. Palin - it needs to happen.
We all know this. We knew it on August 29, 2008. That's why the focus was all on Palin. Everybody forgot about John McCain. We all knew instinctively that this hockey mom was Obama's true nemesis. That's why the media and all the big-spending lefties threw all the weight they had into delaying that contest. "Must destroy Sarah Palin! Must not let her go up against The One!"
But they cannot hold back history forever. Something was set in motion in that gymnasium, and it will not be complete until years from now. We know this. We feel it in our inner core. The paradigm has shifted. Everything else is just waiting for the rest of the world to catch up with that shift.
Progressive Makes Documentary About SEIU's Role In Obama's Campaign
The movie is called "Labor Day," and it comes out October 3oth. The guy who made it, Glenn Sibler, is a big leftist. Here's the trailer:
The website is here.
The real story is this: liberal progressives thought that Obama was going to magically transform the world into some kind of leftist utopia. The utopia that they're forever striving for, and in the process, forever pushing out of reach. I got news for ya - it ain't gonna happen.
Well, now that the year is almost over and Obama has turned out to be a big dud, they're trying to relive the glory days of the campaign when all things were possible.
I actually feel sorry for them. Their "Messiah" was nothing but a mistake. Oh, well. We'll let them take one more whirl around memory lane before we bring them back to reality. 2010 and 2012 baby!
The website is here.
The real story is this: liberal progressives thought that Obama was going to magically transform the world into some kind of leftist utopia. The utopia that they're forever striving for, and in the process, forever pushing out of reach. I got news for ya - it ain't gonna happen.
Well, now that the year is almost over and Obama has turned out to be a big dud, they're trying to relive the glory days of the campaign when all things were possible.
I actually feel sorry for them. Their "Messiah" was nothing but a mistake. Oh, well. We'll let them take one more whirl around memory lane before we bring them back to reality. 2010 and 2012 baby!
Friday, October 23, 2009
What If Doug Hoffman Loses?
CBS has an article about Palin's endorsement of Hoffman here. It's fair, that's not why I brought it up. I brought it up because of this line:Given that this is a moderate district (Obama won with 52 percent of the vote in 2008, Bush with 53 percent in 2004 and former Rep. McHugh repeatedly won easily as a moderate), a third-party conservative candidate has a slim chance of actually winning the seat.
What's more likely: Hoffman derails Scozzafava's chance at winning, handing the Democrat Owens a victory and House Democrats another seat on Nov. 3.
Okay, that is a possibility. What if that happens? What if we follow the courage of our convictions and it results in a loss? I'm not saying that he will lose or that the Democrat will win; I'm just saying it's possible.
The most obvious answer is that there's no difference between the Republican and the Democrat anyway. Putting in an "R" rather than a "D" will accomplish nothing. There is no one who infuriates me more than the traitors on our side. The Olympia Snowes of the Republican Party. I would rather be in the minority and be principled than get a majority and betray those values. But there's more to it than that.
If you had presented me with this type of scenario about a year ago, I probably would have gone the Gingrich route. But things have changed.
I have decided that it is better to not vote for the lesser of two evils, even if that means that the greater evil may succeed. Why? It's kind of hard to explain....
Why is America waking up today? Why are there tea parties sprouting up like weeds? Why are there some people who are finally getting involved after 30 plus years of political apathy? Simple: they've been pushed too far.
We can compromise and get a majority, maybe. But we won't be any better off. It's the choice between Obama and McCain. One way you die quickly; the other way you die slowly and painfully. Either way you're dead.
I posit that the American people will never truly rise up and take their country back until they are pushed up against the wall and forced out of their apathy to do so. That will not happen as long as there are moderates "handling" things for us. It's not gonna happen.
So, what if Doug Hoffman loses? What if the Democrat wins? What good will standing by conservative principles have done then?
Who woke the American people up more: John McCain or Obama?
Think about it.
Friday, October 9, 2009
If Obama Can Apologize for America, I Can Apologize for Norway
I woke up this morning to a gem: Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
What do I have to say about that? What does Hillary Clinton have to say about it? (Jump to 1:23)
(Wiping tear away from eye). Ahem. Okay, moving on....
While some, like Polish President Lech Walesa, say it's far too early in Obama's Presidency to give him such an award (ya think?), others applaud the President's attempts to cooperate with other nations and encourage nuclear disarmament. Others (like me) are saying, "Ummm, maybe we should wait and see if those attempts actually work? Whaddya say?"
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is responsible. If you haven't figured it out by now, I have a Nordic heritage. Half Norwegian, to be exact (and yes, I love Ole and Lena jokes). I'm afraid I simply must apologize for the land of my ancestors. We have many things going for us: hats with horns, lefse, coffee cups that say "Uffda" on them, and a philosophy of life that demands that you "sit long and talk much" while drinking from your "Uffda" cup. Unfortunately, every nation has its quacks, and the Norwegian Nobel Committee appears to be one of ours.
So, for today anyway, I think I'll lean more toward my Irish side.
(Chuckle) Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize...now that's just funny.
A man stumbles up to the only other patron in the bar and asks if he could buy him a drink.
"Why, of course," comes the reply.
The first man asks, "So, where are you from?"
"I'm from Norway," says the second man.
"You don't say! I'm from Norway too. Let's have another round to Norway." Curious, the first man then asks, "Where in Norway are you from?"
"Bergen," says the second man.
"I don't believe it," replies the first man. "I'm from Bergen too. Let's have another drink to Bergen." And they do. Curious again, the first man asks, "Where in Bergen did you live?"
"On a boat, at the fishing docks," says the second man.
"This is unbelievable! I lived in a boat at the fishing docks too!" said the first man.
About that time one of the regulars came in and sat down at the bar. "What's been going on?" he asks the bartender.
"Nothing much," says the bartender. "Ole and his brother Sven are drunk again."
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
LOTUS - Palin on Afghanistan
Palin's new Facebook note (click on LOTUS icon on the right) calls Obama out on Afghanistan:For two years as a candidate, Senator Obama called for more resources for the war in Afghanistan and warned about the consequences of failure. As President, he announced a comprehensive new counterinsurgency strategy and handpicked the right general to execute it. Now General McChrystal is asking for additional troops to implement the strategy announced by President Obama in March. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers in harm's way in Afghanistan right now. We owe it to all those brave Americans serving in uniform to give them the tools they need to complete their mission.
We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.
Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision. Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision -- it is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.
- Sarah Palin
Ouch.
I honestly don't understand the President dragging his feet on this. Can you imagine being a soldier over there? You're fighting for your life, and your Commander in Chief is telling you that he's not sure he'll give you what you need, but you're staying there no matter what; pulling out is not an option. Talk about a morale killer.
They've got a rough gig over there, and they're putting their lives on the line so that we won't have to. Kids who were fresh out of high school mowing their parents lawns a few months ago are now dodging bullets so that I can sit here all comfortable and blog about it. God bless our troops, and God protect them. And hopefully Obama will make the right decision on this, because American lives are on the line.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Palin on Obama's Enemies List?
It's in Globe Magazine so I'm not taking it as Gospel, but according to the tabloid, Obama's got a hit list. And oh, looky who's on it, the one and only Sarah Palin. What a shock. This may be the only time in history I pick up a tabloid and give it a passing glance. Take one article with a large dose of salt before supper.Saturday, September 26, 2009
Obama to Cut Off Pensions for Heroes
This one seriously has me ticked. Obama usually annoys me, but on this one I'm hopping mad. Obama has decided not to continue pension payments to the members of the Alaska Territorial Guard, a group of Alaskan natives who watched our Alaskan border during WWII. Article:In a strongly worded message to Congress outlining its priorities for a military spending bill, the Obama administration today said it disapproved of including money for pensions for 26 elderly members of the World War II-era Alaska Territorial Guard. The Guardsmen are among those assigned to protect Alaska from the Japanese during World War II.
The Army decided this year to no longer count service in the Guard in calculating the military's 20-year minimum for retirement pay, although it still counts for military benefits. As a result, their pensions were decreased in January. An estimated 300 members are still living from the original 6,600-member unit formed in 1942 to protect Alaska, then a territory, from attack. The 26 men have enough other military service to reach the 20-year minimum for retirement pay but would lose it if the Territorial Guard service doesn't count.
A Senate military spending bill up for a vote in the Senate allows the former Guard members count their service as part of active military duty, and it reinstates the payments. State lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year to fill the pay gap until Congress made a permanent fix, but the White House said Friday it didn't think it was "appropriate to establish a precedent of treating service performed by a state employee as active duty for purposes of the computation of retired pay."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who along with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, sponsored the fix, called the administration move "deeply disappointing, bordering on insensitive." The legislation honors 26 elderly Native people who are the few remaining survivors of a military unit that served the country with valor," Murkowski said, "The administration's justification, which is that the legislation will set the precedent of treating service as a state employee as federal service, defies logic and history," she said in a statement.
"Sixty-two years after the Territorial Guard was disbanded, the Obama administration minimizes the contribution of this gallant unit to America's success in World War II by calling its service 'state service.' "
Governor Palin went back and forth with Washington on this issue earlier this year. At the end of April she signed legislation that would continue payments to the ATG while they petitioned Washington, D.C. to reinstate the pensions.
Press release from April 29, 2009:
The Department of Defense decided in January to discontinue retirement benefits to ATG members, but temporarily suspended its decision at the urging of Governor Palin and Alaska’s congressional delegation. The Department of Defense agreed to extend payments until April to give Congress time to devise a permanent solution through amendments to the law. Congress has not yet acted, so until it does the state will fund the payments, which total about $10,000 per month.
Governor Palin's statements at the bill-signing ceremony:
"It is a great honor to sign this bill into law today. These Territorial Guard veterans are bona fide Alaskan heroes, cut from the same cloth as the Minutemen who answered the call to defend Lexington and Concord. They have earned every cent of their retirement benefits, as well as our enduring gratitude for their service.”
Earlier in the year space was officially dedicated at the Alaska State Capitol to honor the members of the ATG.
Obama's argument is that the ATG was a state service. Well, duh! (Actually, Alaska was a territory at the time, so I'm not sure how you could call it state service.) During WWII, the Alaskan Territorial Guard was our first line of defense against Japanese attack on our northern border. But no, let's call it state service and cut off benefits. I swear, could an Administration be more clueless?
The Alaska Territorial Guard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
