Seems foolhardy to continue with this analysis, BUT, when we are given more proof day in and day out, how can people continue to be so blind to the radical intentions of this administration?
Roger Kimball has an excellent piece on this burgeoning far-left activity coming from all the unelected czars and appointees of our transcendant, ecumenical president. Kimball sums it up nicely:
"This is the point: last November, the American people thought they were electing a “post-partisan,” “post-racial” President who would work to restore unity and self-confidence to the country. They woke up on November 5, however, to find that they had elected someone who was deeply ambivalent about America, who distrusted its founding principles of limited government, individual liberty, and local responsibility. Like his radical friends — Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Anita Dunn — Barack Obama wishes to transform the United States according to a model whose basic shape was supplied by the utopian schemes of the 1960s.
That’s why Anita Dunn said that Mao was one of the thinkers she most often turned to for wisdom about big-think political problems. It’s not that she admires his penchant for industrial strength homicide: rather, she admires his success at fomenting an egalitarian revolution. It’s not what we bargained for when we elected Barack Obama. But that’s what we’ve got.
The question is how much worse will things have to get before the penny drops, before the scales fall from the collective eyes of the electorate? When will voters begin that long countermarch through the institutions in order to take back the country? If not now, when?"
You can expect more aggressive actions from these fools as more people oppose their policies. They will force them through, damning the consequences and risking their own political futures while betting that administrations to follow won't have the guts to repeal their agenda. As many have observed recently, this is a center-right country. People want Washington corrected... not redirected.
(hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
20 October 2009
15 October 2009
A New Plan for Rush Limbaugh
We have reached a point in this country where it is next to impossible for a white male to discuss an issue that involves race. Even if you are talking about an issue, perhaps even one that has been talked about by others - notably minorities, somehow it makes the white male a racist.
Here's what Rush Limbaugh should do:
Step 1.) Start an underground dog-fighting ring.
Step 2.) After you have drowned that last dog for not winning its fight, put on some sweat pants, grab your gun, and head out to the club.
Step 3.) While at the club, make it "rain" for the strippers.
Step 4.) Once it stops "raining" (money or bullets), get good and drunk, and get in your Bentley to go for a spin.
Step 5.) While driving, make sure you run over and kill someone. Be certain not to report it.
If Limbaugh follows this simple 5-step plan, he will be accepted into the NFL just like the other NFL "employees" who have done these very same things. Evidently, the only thing that is frowned on by the NFL is being a white conservative.
Side note: Where were all the minority leaders when defenseless 16-year old honor student & football player Derrion Albert was being beaten to death with a railroad tie because he wouldn't join a gang? What about HIS chances to be a part of the NFL? Where were Al Sharpton and Shelia Jackson-Lee then? For that matter, where are they NOW? Is there no money to be made in black-on-black crime? No race-hustling that can gain you a spotlight?
Get your own hypocritical house in order, Mr. Sharpton. Your, and the rest of the Left's selective outrage sickens me... especially when you have NO facts to substantiate your racist claims. That doesn't just make YOU a racist, it shows you are willfully ignorant of the truth. Yet, you still choose to repeat and spew lies to advance your own twisted agenda. Without it, you become irrelevant, and the racial divide from which you so gladly profit, might actually begin to narrow.
(hat tip: Patrick S.)
_____
Here's what Rush Limbaugh should do:
Step 1.) Start an underground dog-fighting ring.
Step 2.) After you have drowned that last dog for not winning its fight, put on some sweat pants, grab your gun, and head out to the club.
Step 3.) While at the club, make it "rain" for the strippers.
Step 4.) Once it stops "raining" (money or bullets), get good and drunk, and get in your Bentley to go for a spin.
Step 5.) While driving, make sure you run over and kill someone. Be certain not to report it.
If Limbaugh follows this simple 5-step plan, he will be accepted into the NFL just like the other NFL "employees" who have done these very same things. Evidently, the only thing that is frowned on by the NFL is being a white conservative.
Side note: Where were all the minority leaders when defenseless 16-year old honor student & football player Derrion Albert was being beaten to death with a railroad tie because he wouldn't join a gang? What about HIS chances to be a part of the NFL? Where were Al Sharpton and Shelia Jackson-Lee then? For that matter, where are they NOW? Is there no money to be made in black-on-black crime? No race-hustling that can gain you a spotlight?
Get your own hypocritical house in order, Mr. Sharpton. Your, and the rest of the Left's selective outrage sickens me... especially when you have NO facts to substantiate your racist claims. That doesn't just make YOU a racist, it shows you are willfully ignorant of the truth. Yet, you still choose to repeat and spew lies to advance your own twisted agenda. Without it, you become irrelevant, and the racial divide from which you so gladly profit, might actually begin to narrow.
(hat tip: Patrick S.)
_____
09 October 2009
A Nobel Prize in Every Box!... and Other Moon-battery
The useful idiots who award the Nobel Peace Prize have outdone themselves again. In the process, they have solidified the irrelevant nature of their once prestigious award. Somehow, President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, not for anything he's done, but for what he might do... oh, and maybe a couple of speeches he's given. But then again, the consensus is that this is more about a statement against former President Bush than it is anything about Obama's rhetorical accomplishments.
From the AP: "Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the committee has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous." When you share such an award with the other useful idiot, Jimmy Carter (now the 2nd worst president in US history), and Al "the science is settled" Gore, I'm not sure the prestige of present company is all that stellar.
By comparison, from TIME, regarding another nominee: "Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress."
Let's not forget the deadline for his application was 12 days into his presidency... 12 days.
In a related over-hyped lack of government accomplishment, can anyone explain to me why NASA feels compelled to spend $79 MILLION dollars to crash a toy into the moon? The official word from the space cadets and rocket scientists is that they hope to find evidence of water on the moon. So the REAL $79 million question is, and let's play their game for a minute, if there IS water on the moon... THEN WHAT? Are we going to colonize? Perhaps import trendy water from the moon instead of France? Maybe setup a lunar Wet N' Wild?
I'll go on record today as saying that no one in my lifetime needs to live on the moon. No one in my lifetime will need water from the moon. There has not been, and will not be, evidence of life on the moon (other than our astronauts). The moon is a giant dustball. I'm no astronomer, but seems to me that all the craters on its surface, resulting from it being pelted by wayward space rocks, tell us that it's as dry as the Mojave desert. Good enough for me. I venture to guess that a vast majority of Americans simply would rather have those tax dollars to spend here on earth... but that's just one man's $79 million opinion.
I'm just not certain which of these is more surreal to me...to believe that a first-term, unaccomplished president can be arrogant enough to file a Nobel Peace Prize application 12 days into his presidency hoping to win (and one doesn't just file unless one wants to win); or that our government who, with hundreds of millions of hard-earned tax dollars, continues to placate grown children who don't have enough toys here on earth to tinker with. And how do we continue to spend as much as we do on a space program that has yet to provide any measurable, reasonable, or rational return-on-investment?
One thing is for sure... if there is intelligent life out there (that drinks water or not), given the continued insanity of news days like this, they certainly aren't looking for us.
_____
From the AP: "Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the committee has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous." When you share such an award with the other useful idiot, Jimmy Carter (now the 2nd worst president in US history), and Al "the science is settled" Gore, I'm not sure the prestige of present company is all that stellar.
By comparison, from TIME, regarding another nominee: "Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress."
Let's not forget the deadline for his application was 12 days into his presidency... 12 days.
In a related over-hyped lack of government accomplishment, can anyone explain to me why NASA feels compelled to spend $79 MILLION dollars to crash a toy into the moon? The official word from the space cadets and rocket scientists is that they hope to find evidence of water on the moon. So the REAL $79 million question is, and let's play their game for a minute, if there IS water on the moon... THEN WHAT? Are we going to colonize? Perhaps import trendy water from the moon instead of France? Maybe setup a lunar Wet N' Wild?
I'll go on record today as saying that no one in my lifetime needs to live on the moon. No one in my lifetime will need water from the moon. There has not been, and will not be, evidence of life on the moon (other than our astronauts). The moon is a giant dustball. I'm no astronomer, but seems to me that all the craters on its surface, resulting from it being pelted by wayward space rocks, tell us that it's as dry as the Mojave desert. Good enough for me. I venture to guess that a vast majority of Americans simply would rather have those tax dollars to spend here on earth... but that's just one man's $79 million opinion.
I'm just not certain which of these is more surreal to me...to believe that a first-term, unaccomplished president can be arrogant enough to file a Nobel Peace Prize application 12 days into his presidency hoping to win (and one doesn't just file unless one wants to win); or that our government who, with hundreds of millions of hard-earned tax dollars, continues to placate grown children who don't have enough toys here on earth to tinker with. And how do we continue to spend as much as we do on a space program that has yet to provide any measurable, reasonable, or rational return-on-investment?
One thing is for sure... if there is intelligent life out there (that drinks water or not), given the continued insanity of news days like this, they certainly aren't looking for us.
_____
06 October 2009
Can Feingold Get Containment?
Given that Feingold is typically to the left of the Left, do we really think this is a serious venture or just an end-around the end-around? We'll see...
_____
Senate will hold hearing to probe Obama czars
By: Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent
10/05/09 5:22 PM EDT
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday will scrutinize the "czar" system used by President Obama and previous administrations.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who heads the Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, said he wants to explore whether the dozens of czars appointed by the Obama administration constitute "an end run around the advice and consent process."
Feingold said his probe does not involve Senate-confirmed czars such as the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. "I am most interested in those advisors who have been given important portfolios without undergoing Senate scrutiny," Feingold said.The witness list includes Matthew Spalding, of the Heritage Foundation and University of Virginia Law School's John C. Harrison.
Among the czars appointed by Obama this year was green jobs czar Van Jones, who ended up resigning after controversial past statements surfaced as well as a petition he signed accusing the Bush administration of purposely ignoring warnings of Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Other top advisors not vetted by the Senate include Afghanistan czar Richard Holbrooke and environment and energy czar Carol Browner.
_____
_____
Senate will hold hearing to probe Obama czars
By: Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent
10/05/09 5:22 PM EDT
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday will scrutinize the "czar" system used by President Obama and previous administrations.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who heads the Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, said he wants to explore whether the dozens of czars appointed by the Obama administration constitute "an end run around the advice and consent process."
Feingold said his probe does not involve Senate-confirmed czars such as the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. "I am most interested in those advisors who have been given important portfolios without undergoing Senate scrutiny," Feingold said.The witness list includes Matthew Spalding, of the Heritage Foundation and University of Virginia Law School's John C. Harrison.
Among the czars appointed by Obama this year was green jobs czar Van Jones, who ended up resigning after controversial past statements surfaced as well as a petition he signed accusing the Bush administration of purposely ignoring warnings of Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Other top advisors not vetted by the Senate include Afghanistan czar Richard Holbrooke and environment and energy czar Carol Browner.
_____
05 October 2009
Cows, Constitutions, & Commandments
Think about this:
1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments
_______________________
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
_______________________
THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq... Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
_______________________
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse or Congress is this -- you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians... it creates a hostile work environment.
(hat tip: Dad)
_____
1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments
_______________________
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
_______________________
THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq... Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
_______________________
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse or Congress is this -- you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians... it creates a hostile work environment.
(hat tip: Dad)
_____
01 October 2009
"This is YOUR Time!"
An instant classic as this 4-year old re-enacts the Herb Brooks speech from the movie "Miracle" about the 1980 US Men's Ice Hockey team and their upset over the Soviets.
_____
27 September 2009
Tell Me Who's Wrong Here
An assortment of astute observations:
_____
"Governments don't do things because they're in the world's interests. Governments often don't even do things because they're in their people's interests. Many times, governments do things because it's in the government's interest."
- Jon Alterman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"If schools wasted less time on “social justice,” “Everyday Math” crap, eco-zealotry, field trips to gay weddings and illegal alien day labor centers, rappin’, revolution, and radicalism, and searching for children’s “inner Obamas,” they wouldn’t need to make up all the squandered days and weeks during the summer."
- Michelle Malkin, Author & Columnist
"Any serious observer recognizes that the economic surge of the nineties was the result of the invention of the web along with the Y2K remediation effort. These events had about as much to do with Clinton's stewardship of the economy as I have responsibility for the invention of the Fudgsicle®. Put simply, a trained dolphin could have been President during the late 90's tech boom. Come to think of it, even a philandering, disbarred former attorney who sold missile secrets to the Chinese for campaign donations while allowing terrorists to relentlessly attack U.S. interests could have been President."
- Doug Ross, Prominent Blogger
"Socialists then and now rely on the writings of the economist, John Maynard Keynes to justify large government spending programs to stimulate the economy. However, Keynes himself wrote to FDR in 1938 questioning his spending programs and why FDR would use only one aspect of his economic theories. The answer is very simple: government programs create the illusion of improving the economy. People only see the jobs created by government programs, never the jobs that are lost in the private sector to create them."
- David Nace, American Thinker
"Common sense question: how are our representatives supposed to vote on something that will effect every American and remake nearly 20 percent of the economy without knowing what's in it, and how much it will cost? In any other context, this would be a dumb question. In the context of a Democratically-run Congress, it's par for the course."
- Monica Crowley, Radio/TV Host
"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow. International law is not an empty promise."
- Barack Obama, President
_____
_____
"Governments don't do things because they're in the world's interests. Governments often don't even do things because they're in their people's interests. Many times, governments do things because it's in the government's interest."
- Jon Alterman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"If schools wasted less time on “social justice,” “Everyday Math” crap, eco-zealotry, field trips to gay weddings and illegal alien day labor centers, rappin’, revolution, and radicalism, and searching for children’s “inner Obamas,” they wouldn’t need to make up all the squandered days and weeks during the summer."
- Michelle Malkin, Author & Columnist
"Any serious observer recognizes that the economic surge of the nineties was the result of the invention of the web along with the Y2K remediation effort. These events had about as much to do with Clinton's stewardship of the economy as I have responsibility for the invention of the Fudgsicle®. Put simply, a trained dolphin could have been President during the late 90's tech boom. Come to think of it, even a philandering, disbarred former attorney who sold missile secrets to the Chinese for campaign donations while allowing terrorists to relentlessly attack U.S. interests could have been President."
- Doug Ross, Prominent Blogger
"Socialists then and now rely on the writings of the economist, John Maynard Keynes to justify large government spending programs to stimulate the economy. However, Keynes himself wrote to FDR in 1938 questioning his spending programs and why FDR would use only one aspect of his economic theories. The answer is very simple: government programs create the illusion of improving the economy. People only see the jobs created by government programs, never the jobs that are lost in the private sector to create them."
- David Nace, American Thinker
"Common sense question: how are our representatives supposed to vote on something that will effect every American and remake nearly 20 percent of the economy without knowing what's in it, and how much it will cost? In any other context, this would be a dumb question. In the context of a Democratically-run Congress, it's par for the course."
- Monica Crowley, Radio/TV Host
"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow. International law is not an empty promise."
- Barack Obama, President
_____
26 September 2009
Ehren Watada, Coward
Now private citizen Ehren Watada is a disgrace to all the courageous men and women who volunteer their service, and more importantly, their lives in duty to not only their fellow servicemen, but to their country. If you don't want to go to war, or fear the potential thereof, do not enlist. Period. There is no mystery about what the armed services of the United States is, does, and expects of those who sign up.
Ehren Watada, you are not a patriot. You are a shameful, gutless, coward.
_____
25 September 2009
Quick Hits - Must Read Edition
Sometimes an opinion is echoed so clearly, that you can only allow the voice of someone else to speak. If you haven't received any of this news from other sources, I strongly encourage you to take the time to read each of these stories. They each cover topics so profoundly important to the future of our nation.
_______________
"Dear Leader in Our Public Schools" (Malkin) - Clear attempts at indoctrination by an Obama sycophant
Circumventing the Legislative Process (Heritage) - The Senate is planning an "end-around" to make national healthcare an amendment to a House bill related to TARP bonuses. This should enrage EVERY fair-minded American.
John Bolton is right again...again (McCarty) - One day, future generations will look back and wonder why America did not listen to John Bolton. The man says exactly what needs to be said and done.
_______________
Spread the word. Take action. Our elected leaders MUST listen to us and not just once every four years...
(hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
23 September 2009
21 September 2009
Holding Candidate Obama Accountable
Then Candidate Obama said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008.
"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He repeatedly promised "You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
We'll just see about that... if money goes out of my pocket to the government for any reason, IT IS A TAX. And if MORE goes to the government than I paid before, then that is a TAX INCREASE.
Get ready, America... it IS coming...
_____
20 September 2009
Victims, Perps, and Selective Liberal Outrage
Nathan G. weighs in on the Annie Le/Yale murder...
Where is the liberal outrage for this poor, young, not as educated as the Asian girl, white guy who may have committed this crime due to his environment?
Where are the people who would say, had there been more programs in place at Yale or New Haven for the working class affiliating with the Hob Nobbery of Ivy Leaguers to understand each other better this would not have happened?
Why can't the ACLU come out screaming saying this was caused by socio-economic disparity of lifestyles and environmental inefficiencies?
Oh, I know why... Because this world has people who have problems and evil can rear its ugly head at any moment, regardless of race, gender or even sexual preference. Why can't people accept this when considering other people from different backgrounds? White Guy loses it and kills someone...accepted with nods and understanding. Asian kid shoots up the Virginia Tech campus and you have to subject everyone to analysis paralysis for months on end.
Can there not be a moment when people see crime as just crime...and not some demographic anomaly? What is the likelihood that Yale will now institute some emotionally-driven program where employees and students will have to meet and discuss their differences so each can feel better?
Give me a break! It was murder and it is sad. An innocent life was taken and there is no way to explain this. You can bring every knucklehead to the table and no matter what, you will not ever be able to understand the mind of a killer.
Lastly, I pray for the soul of that young lady who has been taken. I also pray for the soul of this man who may very well have killed her. Both are tragic losses to both families and society. One just carries more sadness than the other.
Still, just watch the sensationalistic media endlessly salivate all over this... then again, maybe I will not have to hear about Michael Jackson anymore. Where is Kanye when I need him to throw a damn fit?
_____
15 September 2009
Quick Hits
Tiring of Obama's Tactics - It will be interesting to see how Obama's decision to slap punitive tariffs on tires made in China will affect not just the American consumer with higher prices, but also our trade relationship with China. Is it just me, or has the President clearly placed a higher value on union payback and support, based on their bogus claims of union job losses, than he does on doing what's in the best interest of the country? The move is clearly political to maintain union support for his healthcare disaster. But how does he expect to bite the hand that feeds him without consequences? Can he really expect that China will continue to finance his massive spending when he makes a decision like this? Has anyone been to DC lately and can you tell me what color the sky is in their world?
Yale Grad Student Murder - I'm very interested to know just HOW one is able to get a body inside a wall of an existing building? This is one strange case.
Offensive Football - Here we go again. A small group of seven Native Americans finds the Washington football name to be offensive and is asking the SCOTUS to side with them. I'm not a Native American, but it appears to me that we have more important matters to put before the court, as well as the Native American community, do we not?
Samurai Justice - Can anyone explain to me just why the prosecutors are considering filing charges against a college student who was protecting his property as well as his own well-being by killing a burglar with a samurai sword? Is there any justice in this country anymore for people who AREN'T criminals?
The Big Roadhouse - Patrick Swayze passed yesterday after a battle with pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly cancers and usually carries a prognosis of 6 months or less on diagnosis. Swayze fought for almost a year and a half. Guess God needed "Dalton" in His Roadhouse...
_____
11 September 2009
Paul K. Sloan
I didn’t know Paul K. Sloan.
I didn’t know that Paul worked in financial services for Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods. I didn’t know Paul went to Brown University. I didn’t know that Paul played football for Brown. I didn't know that the Brown Football Association Offensive Lineman Award was remaned in honor of Paul. I didn’t know Paul liked the Beatles. I didn’t know that Paul was from California. I didn’t know that Paul was 26 years old. There are a lot of things I don’t know about Paul, because I never met Paul.
Despite the fact I never met him, I do know Paul. I know that Paul had a loving family. I know that Paul valued and was valued immeasurably by his friends. I know that Paul went to work every day knowing that he was making a difference. I know that Paul and I shared the same ideals and beliefs about our potential for success. I know that Paul believed in and was a part of the American Dream. And I know that because Paul was at work in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Paul stood for everything that the cowards who took the lives of 2,996 people on that day were against. Finally, I know that God knows Paul. He always knew him. He knew that Psalm 139:16 would remind us that Paul’s life was the exact length God intended. Paul is representative of all the things that make this country great.
Paul K. Sloan (Legacy.com)
A fund has been established in Paul’s name at Brown University. Contributions may be sent to:
Brown University
c/o Brown Sports Foundation
Box 1925
Providence, RI 02912
Attn: Paul K. Sloan - '97 Memorial Fund
Make checks payable to Brown University, and include in the Memo space:
Paul Sloan - '97 Memorial Fund
_____
10 September 2009
One Man's Capitalism
Joe Wilson (R-SC) has with two poorly timed (but honest) words, spawned the essence of capitalism... which is more than we can say for the administration.
_____
08 September 2009
Blind to Hypocrisy
The idiot march of hypocrisy from the mindless left continues.
I just have one word for you Sitafa... Seriously!? I mean, what rock have you been living under for the past 8 years!? Get real and stop living in your irrational, left-leaning fantasy world.
It's okay to disagree with the president. And those of us who do are not racists or assassins in waiting. I though it would be un-American NOT to disagree with him... Isn't that what Hillary said?!
(hat tip: Nathan G.)
_____
06 September 2009
Dancing With the Czars
"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
One radical contestant eliminated... 30+ more to go...
So Van Jones resigned with little fanfare and virtually no coverage. Hence the line from the article, "The resignation was disclosed without advance notice by the White House in a dead-of-the-night e-mail on a holiday weekend. It came as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate." Of course it did... wouldn't want to alert Americans to the remaining radicals who are not elected or accountable to the electoral process by voters, now would we? If this is a sign of things to come, Cass Sunstein should be next... You can cast your vote here.
Personally, I think all GOP Senators and House members should bring any and all legislation to a screeching halt until ALL these "czars" are fully questioned by Congress. You know that if the power structure currently favored Republicans, this is exactly what the Democrats would be doing. But instead, Mr. Jones claims that using HIS OWN WORDS against him as he tried to posture as something he's not, is "...using lies and distortions to distract and divide." Really, Mr. Jones? Is this a statement that you truly believe (today, anyway)?
America, let this be an example of why it is so important for Congress to be able to investigate and ask questions of those who would directly advise the President. Obama has wantonly circumvented this process and has never been held accountable for any of his clearly radical appointments. Van Jones is the first one to go for being an extreme radical - which is clearly out of step with the majority of this country.
This process of appointing "czars" has become more than a mere unconstitutional practice we've tolerated in a few special circumstances. It has become a way to infiltrate the system and provide those who have VERY specific agendas to appear legitimate in the eyes of the public. However, much like they always do, Obama and the Democrats have misread the public and have overreached yet again. Seems like the one thing this administration is becoming very adept at is backtracking and getting forgiveness under the claim of "not knowing".
Most of the people who put Obama in office are not (completely) blind and are FINALLY beginning to see him for what he is (Many of us knew this during the campaign!). They voted for "hope and change" and are seeing that isn't his style. In fact, it is much the opposite. He is not getting away with claims of naivete any longer. Americans may have forgiven one or maybe two... but after all the issues with his cabinet members not paying taxes and stepping down from nominations, this appears to be a pattern of deception with this administration. Much like I discussed recently regarding changing rules you don't like, this resignation is a prime example of that which he has been doing with all these illegitimate "appointments".
My guess is that this "resignation" is the tip of a very big iceberg for these czars as well as the radical agenda the White House is pressing... and Obama is the captain of the Titanic.
(open quote hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
One radical contestant eliminated... 30+ more to go...
So Van Jones resigned with little fanfare and virtually no coverage. Hence the line from the article, "The resignation was disclosed without advance notice by the White House in a dead-of-the-night e-mail on a holiday weekend. It came as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate." Of course it did... wouldn't want to alert Americans to the remaining radicals who are not elected or accountable to the electoral process by voters, now would we? If this is a sign of things to come, Cass Sunstein should be next... You can cast your vote here.
Personally, I think all GOP Senators and House members should bring any and all legislation to a screeching halt until ALL these "czars" are fully questioned by Congress. You know that if the power structure currently favored Republicans, this is exactly what the Democrats would be doing. But instead, Mr. Jones claims that using HIS OWN WORDS against him as he tried to posture as something he's not, is "...using lies and distortions to distract and divide." Really, Mr. Jones? Is this a statement that you truly believe (today, anyway)?
America, let this be an example of why it is so important for Congress to be able to investigate and ask questions of those who would directly advise the President. Obama has wantonly circumvented this process and has never been held accountable for any of his clearly radical appointments. Van Jones is the first one to go for being an extreme radical - which is clearly out of step with the majority of this country.
This process of appointing "czars" has become more than a mere unconstitutional practice we've tolerated in a few special circumstances. It has become a way to infiltrate the system and provide those who have VERY specific agendas to appear legitimate in the eyes of the public. However, much like they always do, Obama and the Democrats have misread the public and have overreached yet again. Seems like the one thing this administration is becoming very adept at is backtracking and getting forgiveness under the claim of "not knowing".
Most of the people who put Obama in office are not (completely) blind and are FINALLY beginning to see him for what he is (Many of us knew this during the campaign!). They voted for "hope and change" and are seeing that isn't his style. In fact, it is much the opposite. He is not getting away with claims of naivete any longer. Americans may have forgiven one or maybe two... but after all the issues with his cabinet members not paying taxes and stepping down from nominations, this appears to be a pattern of deception with this administration. Much like I discussed recently regarding changing rules you don't like, this resignation is a prime example of that which he has been doing with all these illegitimate "appointments".
My guess is that this "resignation" is the tip of a very big iceberg for these czars as well as the radical agenda the White House is pressing... and Obama is the captain of the Titanic.
(open quote hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
04 September 2009
Einstein's God
And now for something completely different... As you all know, I tend to keep it very opinionated and focused on news of the day, including the good, bad, and ugly. However, I try to find my own sources of inspiration as well. I usually keep these missives to myself or on occasion, share them with a couple of people. However, I really felt that this one was a very interesting perspective on the nature of our existence and our understanding of a higher power... What do you think?
(from Our Daily Bread)
When the great physicist Albert Einstein was asked if he believed in God, he responded:
“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. . . . That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human beings toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”
I find it especially interesting the number of people who may not specifically believe what I believe, but like Einstein, ask "childlike" questions about the nature of our existence. They do this knowing that no one can explain it or really knows the origins of life - and it's doubtful as humans that we ever will.
An old pastor once told me that in order to understand God, we have to use human/earthly terms to attempt to explain Him. However, we often forget that God is not of this world, so it is futile to attempt such an explanation. I think this is why so many people find it challenging to truly explain their faith, and yet they persist in believing.
_____
(from Our Daily Bread)
When the great physicist Albert Einstein was asked if he believed in God, he responded:
“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. . . . That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human beings toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”
I find it especially interesting the number of people who may not specifically believe what I believe, but like Einstein, ask "childlike" questions about the nature of our existence. They do this knowing that no one can explain it or really knows the origins of life - and it's doubtful as humans that we ever will.
An old pastor once told me that in order to understand God, we have to use human/earthly terms to attempt to explain Him. However, we often forget that God is not of this world, so it is futile to attempt such an explanation. I think this is why so many people find it challenging to truly explain their faith, and yet they persist in believing.
_____
03 September 2009
Changing the Rules in the Middle of the Game
I know this is a couple of days past, but how any rational person cannot see this for the hypocrisy it is has to be blind or so partisan that it affects any possible clear judgment.
Ted Kennedy, a US SENATOR (not a state representative or senator, mind you) and the Democrats worked to change STATE LAW in Massachusetts to remove constitutional powers from the governor's office when there was a chance that a Republican (Mitt Romney) might appoint a successor to John Kerry. But realizing his own situation, Kennedy wanted to AGAIN change the law the HE wanted changed previously to hurt Republicans in order to put it back the way that benefited Democrats. Obviously, it is more important to maintain the filibuster proof majority for the Democrats than it is to represent the people in a fair manner and play by rules that you've agreed to.
If this isn't a shining example of how the Democrats and the leftist elites in this country operate, please, show me a better one. Oh, I'd say that the Al Gore selective recount might fit, or the Al Franken multiple vote counting standards would also be one. I can also point to Harry Reid's efforts to seat Al Franken well before he was declared the winner or even remotely close to being certified by the state. How about the Obama Administration's refusal to release the list of healthcare executives and consultants who have visited the White House to discuss legislation, but they went ballistic when Dick Cheney wouldn't do it with energy companies? There are also the legal issues related to the "fishy" email address for telling on your fellow citizens at flag@whitehouse.gov about healthcare opinions. The list goes on...If the GOP had done these things, the Left would have gone insane... and they did for lesser things during the Bush years! How about the refusal to allow votes on Bush's judicial nominees? Many were held up procedurally for years by Democrats. Fairness is their mantra but not their mode.
Can you give me examples of Republicans doing this? I'd love to hear them and if their legitimate, I'll even agree with you. Both parties do it, but it always appears that Democrats are so brazen about it and they are never called to task for it... more often than not, they get what they want and no one seems to care. They know that voters will not punish them for picking and choosing how they want to govern in the moment.
The Left continues to to want to selectively apply laws and rules (or just change them) to their benefit and rarely do they have the best intentions as citizen legislators at heart. It's always about power to press a party-line agenda and stay in office.
The only way to correct this problem is through term limits. It's just unfortunate to me that while we can get them at the Presidential and State levels, in many places, Congress has built themselves such a protective silo full of career elitists (Kennedy, Byrd, Dodd, Biden, Kerry, McConnell, Lott, Graham) that the voters eliminate any possibility of getting true reform out of DC by re-electing these criminals who think they know what is best for you. This goes for ANY politician who has served more than 2 terms - in EITHER chamber.
And what they think is best for you today, may not be politically beneficial for them tomorrow... so they'll change the law (rules) in the middle of the game. And you'll again be stuck with the consequences of this representative government who could care less about you.
_____
Ted Kennedy, a US SENATOR (not a state representative or senator, mind you) and the Democrats worked to change STATE LAW in Massachusetts to remove constitutional powers from the governor's office when there was a chance that a Republican (Mitt Romney) might appoint a successor to John Kerry. But realizing his own situation, Kennedy wanted to AGAIN change the law the HE wanted changed previously to hurt Republicans in order to put it back the way that benefited Democrats. Obviously, it is more important to maintain the filibuster proof majority for the Democrats than it is to represent the people in a fair manner and play by rules that you've agreed to.
If this isn't a shining example of how the Democrats and the leftist elites in this country operate, please, show me a better one. Oh, I'd say that the Al Gore selective recount might fit, or the Al Franken multiple vote counting standards would also be one. I can also point to Harry Reid's efforts to seat Al Franken well before he was declared the winner or even remotely close to being certified by the state. How about the Obama Administration's refusal to release the list of healthcare executives and consultants who have visited the White House to discuss legislation, but they went ballistic when Dick Cheney wouldn't do it with energy companies? There are also the legal issues related to the "fishy" email address for telling on your fellow citizens at flag@whitehouse.gov about healthcare opinions. The list goes on...If the GOP had done these things, the Left would have gone insane... and they did for lesser things during the Bush years! How about the refusal to allow votes on Bush's judicial nominees? Many were held up procedurally for years by Democrats. Fairness is their mantra but not their mode.
Can you give me examples of Republicans doing this? I'd love to hear them and if their legitimate, I'll even agree with you. Both parties do it, but it always appears that Democrats are so brazen about it and they are never called to task for it... more often than not, they get what they want and no one seems to care. They know that voters will not punish them for picking and choosing how they want to govern in the moment.
The Left continues to to want to selectively apply laws and rules (or just change them) to their benefit and rarely do they have the best intentions as citizen legislators at heart. It's always about power to press a party-line agenda and stay in office.
The only way to correct this problem is through term limits. It's just unfortunate to me that while we can get them at the Presidential and State levels, in many places, Congress has built themselves such a protective silo full of career elitists (Kennedy, Byrd, Dodd, Biden, Kerry, McConnell, Lott, Graham) that the voters eliminate any possibility of getting true reform out of DC by re-electing these criminals who think they know what is best for you. This goes for ANY politician who has served more than 2 terms - in EITHER chamber.
And what they think is best for you today, may not be politically beneficial for them tomorrow... so they'll change the law (rules) in the middle of the game. And you'll again be stuck with the consequences of this representative government who could care less about you.
_____
28 August 2009
The Value We Place on Teaching
A recent article from the Christian Science Monitor highlights American attitudes towards their public education system. I take specific note of a few ideas the article discusses.
First, it should come as no surprise that similar assessments apply to Congressional representatives as they do local public schools. Americans are more likely to think their local school (representative) is fairly decent, but that the education system as a whole nationally (Congress) is not. So, the question then becomes, how do we fix a national problem that doesn't seem to exist locally? The education system must be driven locally and must be held accountable to improve and not just be, as the article says, good. If we are to have the high expectations of teachers and the education system, we can't let it off the hook with "good". It isn't good.
Second, an overwhelming majority of American support pay raises and bonuses for teachers. I agree. But, along with that comes accountability, which teacher's unions have fought for decades. As a result, you have issues like Memphis City Schools recently outlawing the practice of failing a student because it may affect their self-esteem. Education is an objective practice. Either you're learning or you're not. The only way to determine that is through objective testing, because you certainly can't do it through a rough guess at how a 3rd grader is "feeling". You can't survey the emotions of elementary schoolkids to determine a teacher's "merit".
I've always said that in a just society, its members would place the highest value on the occupations of doctors/healthcare professionals, teachers, law enforcement/fire protection, and military. But who do we place at the top? Celebrities, athletes, congresspeople, and anyone who is determined to be notorious enough for time on TV. In order for us to justify paying teachers more, they MUST be qualified to teach the subjects they are entrusted with. They too, must be able to pass proficiency tests in order to receive merit raises or bonuses - you know, money that serves as a reward for excellence or going beyond expectations... But a blanket statement of paying teachers more isn't enough. If we paid teachers high wages, the field would be vastly more competitive and the best and brightest would be chartered with teaching our children. But that isn't how it works today...
Third, asking for more money for education is a political winner. After all, who can argue AGAINST funding education? But therein lies the final fallacy... the money that IS allocated is not well spent. It isn't even close. It's why the Republicans suggest that money should go back to taxpayers in the form of vouchers to send their kids to any school. But this too, ignores the problem and would create far more problems than it would solve. They're wrong on this one. They should demand accountability and become the champion of education. It's low-hanging political fruit!
We have too much time and money invested in public education to let it fail. It's time to step up and address the problems like adults for the good of our children and the future. It's time to demand the accountability that should accompany an article such as this. If people are interested in paying teachers more, then it should not just be a feel good venture. Let's get people who know what they are doing and actually care. Pay them competitively and give them the freedom to actually teach to produce learning instead of teaching to produce test scores. And to those of you who are in education today... it's time to lead, follow, or get out of the way because this is a battle you are not currently winning.
Americans from all walks of life have ALWAYS valued education and virtually every generation expects the next to be better off. However, we are seeing that fall away and future generations are not doing better. We are regressing. So, the real question now is are we going to continue to pay lip service to education and teaching, or are we going to put our money where our mouth is and demand accountability and significant improvements in results from our students, who are led by teachers who truly earn the money they deserve?
_____
First, it should come as no surprise that similar assessments apply to Congressional representatives as they do local public schools. Americans are more likely to think their local school (representative) is fairly decent, but that the education system as a whole nationally (Congress) is not. So, the question then becomes, how do we fix a national problem that doesn't seem to exist locally? The education system must be driven locally and must be held accountable to improve and not just be, as the article says, good. If we are to have the high expectations of teachers and the education system, we can't let it off the hook with "good". It isn't good.
Second, an overwhelming majority of American support pay raises and bonuses for teachers. I agree. But, along with that comes accountability, which teacher's unions have fought for decades. As a result, you have issues like Memphis City Schools recently outlawing the practice of failing a student because it may affect their self-esteem. Education is an objective practice. Either you're learning or you're not. The only way to determine that is through objective testing, because you certainly can't do it through a rough guess at how a 3rd grader is "feeling". You can't survey the emotions of elementary schoolkids to determine a teacher's "merit".
I've always said that in a just society, its members would place the highest value on the occupations of doctors/healthcare professionals, teachers, law enforcement/fire protection, and military. But who do we place at the top? Celebrities, athletes, congresspeople, and anyone who is determined to be notorious enough for time on TV. In order for us to justify paying teachers more, they MUST be qualified to teach the subjects they are entrusted with. They too, must be able to pass proficiency tests in order to receive merit raises or bonuses - you know, money that serves as a reward for excellence or going beyond expectations... But a blanket statement of paying teachers more isn't enough. If we paid teachers high wages, the field would be vastly more competitive and the best and brightest would be chartered with teaching our children. But that isn't how it works today...
Third, asking for more money for education is a political winner. After all, who can argue AGAINST funding education? But therein lies the final fallacy... the money that IS allocated is not well spent. It isn't even close. It's why the Republicans suggest that money should go back to taxpayers in the form of vouchers to send their kids to any school. But this too, ignores the problem and would create far more problems than it would solve. They're wrong on this one. They should demand accountability and become the champion of education. It's low-hanging political fruit!
We have too much time and money invested in public education to let it fail. It's time to step up and address the problems like adults for the good of our children and the future. It's time to demand the accountability that should accompany an article such as this. If people are interested in paying teachers more, then it should not just be a feel good venture. Let's get people who know what they are doing and actually care. Pay them competitively and give them the freedom to actually teach to produce learning instead of teaching to produce test scores. And to those of you who are in education today... it's time to lead, follow, or get out of the way because this is a battle you are not currently winning.
Americans from all walks of life have ALWAYS valued education and virtually every generation expects the next to be better off. However, we are seeing that fall away and future generations are not doing better. We are regressing. So, the real question now is are we going to continue to pay lip service to education and teaching, or are we going to put our money where our mouth is and demand accountability and significant improvements in results from our students, who are led by teachers who truly earn the money they deserve?
_____
26 August 2009
25 August 2009
24 August 2009
TIME Magazine STILL Thinks Exercise is Useless
A while back I covered what has proven to be an ongoing issue for TIME magazine and their poor coverage of the benefits of health and exercise. Well, like any poorly edited rag these days, TIME is at it again... and wouldn't you know it... it's our old friend John Cloud.
The Cooper Institute has put out a scathing analysis to accompany the American College of Sports Medicine's press release that seeks to clean up the mess that TIME/John Cloud created with their out-of-context piece claiming scientific evidence that exercise really isn't all that beneficial to weight loss.
From The Cooper Institute via Facebook:
_____
You might have read or heard about the brouhaha concerning the August 17th TIME magazine cover article titled, “The Myth About Exercise.” In it the author claimed that exercise doesn’t help you lose weight and may even cause you to gain weight. Oh my!!
The American College of Sports Medicine immediately sent out a press release to rebut the assertions made in the article. “The statement ‘in general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless’ is not supported by the scientific evidence when there is adherence to a sufficient dose of physical activity in overweight and obese adults” stated John Jakicic, Ph.D., FACSM one of the lead authors on ACSM’s position stand on physical activity in weight management. Click here to access this important position paper.
Dr. Tim Church, Professor at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana was heavily quoted in the article. Or rather, misquoted. After the story broke, he wrote an open letter to TIME magazine, stating, “I found the story to be full of gross inaccuracies and misleading statements, and the premise, as introduced by the title, entirely wrong.”
One of Dr. Church’s recent studies1 was mentioned in the article. In the study, women who exercised at a high level did not lose the amount of weight they were expected to lose based on their caloric expenditure. Church and colleagues were not exactly certain why this happened but felt that the women might have been consciously or unconsciously eating more than when they started the study. Or perhaps there was a physiologic change that compensated calorically for the extra calories burned. Dr. Church and others need more time to tease this out. In the meantime, remember that while some women in this study did gain weight, on average, the group lost weight.
So the journalist twisted the study results and said that exercise causes you to eat more and thus, will sabotage your weight loss efforts. But in his letter to TIME, Church stated, “The majority of people lose weight in response to exercise training even when no dietary advice is provided…The main point we are trying to make when addressing 'compensation' is that regular exercise is not a license to eat anything you want.”
So what's going on here? It’s a classic example of a journalist cherry-picking the science to create a sensationalistic/provocative story that will sell magazines. Well, telling people not to exercise if you want to lose weight will (and did) get people’s attention. Unfortunately, readers got an eye full of inaccuracies. Dr. Church was told by a health reporter that “it will take 10 years to undo the damage of this particular article.” He – and we – hope not.
_____
Just as I pointed out back in May... As if it wasn't bad enough to disparage kids and PE before, they are now telling adults in an otherwise out-of-shape society that exercise isn't the answer. I guess they might as well start covering the benefits of taking Hydroxycut and Alli.
_____
The Cooper Institute has put out a scathing analysis to accompany the American College of Sports Medicine's press release that seeks to clean up the mess that TIME/John Cloud created with their out-of-context piece claiming scientific evidence that exercise really isn't all that beneficial to weight loss.
From The Cooper Institute via Facebook:
_____
You might have read or heard about the brouhaha concerning the August 17th TIME magazine cover article titled, “The Myth About Exercise.” In it the author claimed that exercise doesn’t help you lose weight and may even cause you to gain weight. Oh my!!
The American College of Sports Medicine immediately sent out a press release to rebut the assertions made in the article. “The statement ‘in general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless’ is not supported by the scientific evidence when there is adherence to a sufficient dose of physical activity in overweight and obese adults” stated John Jakicic, Ph.D., FACSM one of the lead authors on ACSM’s position stand on physical activity in weight management. Click here to access this important position paper.
Dr. Tim Church, Professor at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana was heavily quoted in the article. Or rather, misquoted. After the story broke, he wrote an open letter to TIME magazine, stating, “I found the story to be full of gross inaccuracies and misleading statements, and the premise, as introduced by the title, entirely wrong.”
One of Dr. Church’s recent studies1 was mentioned in the article. In the study, women who exercised at a high level did not lose the amount of weight they were expected to lose based on their caloric expenditure. Church and colleagues were not exactly certain why this happened but felt that the women might have been consciously or unconsciously eating more than when they started the study. Or perhaps there was a physiologic change that compensated calorically for the extra calories burned. Dr. Church and others need more time to tease this out. In the meantime, remember that while some women in this study did gain weight, on average, the group lost weight.
So the journalist twisted the study results and said that exercise causes you to eat more and thus, will sabotage your weight loss efforts. But in his letter to TIME, Church stated, “The majority of people lose weight in response to exercise training even when no dietary advice is provided…The main point we are trying to make when addressing 'compensation' is that regular exercise is not a license to eat anything you want.”
So what's going on here? It’s a classic example of a journalist cherry-picking the science to create a sensationalistic/provocative story that will sell magazines. Well, telling people not to exercise if you want to lose weight will (and did) get people’s attention. Unfortunately, readers got an eye full of inaccuracies. Dr. Church was told by a health reporter that “it will take 10 years to undo the damage of this particular article.” He – and we – hope not.
_____
Just as I pointed out back in May... As if it wasn't bad enough to disparage kids and PE before, they are now telling adults in an otherwise out-of-shape society that exercise isn't the answer. I guess they might as well start covering the benefits of taking Hydroxycut and Alli.
_____
21 August 2009
The Future of Elections
Is it just me or does there seem to be a lot more attention paid to the process of deciding elections over the past few years?
I'd like to think this all started back in 2000 when Al Gore - on his way to concede the presidential election and show the world once again how civilized nations peacefully transfer power - suddenly decides on the advice of a staffer that he should win. This minor decision kicks off a race of epic proportions that has tainted virtually every election since then, both domestic and international. Let's call it the "If at first you don't succeed, sue for selective, inconsistent recounts in precincts where you are likely to add votes" strategy. Dare I say this is the ONLY election where Democrats lost - and even that one was in question. Ever since, they've counted until they've won and then claimed legitimate victory.
Here's a few examples of elections where Democrat candidates have opted not to lose without usurping voter intent through the courts:
2000 Washington Senate: Democrat Maria Cantwell narrowly defeats Slade Gorton by just .09% of the vote. Recounts in heavily Democratic precincts played a role.
2004 Washington Gubernatorial: Democrat Christine Gregoire selectively recounts King County until she overturns the win of opponent Dino Rossi, a Republican. 133 vote margin out of 2.8 million cast. Never mind the irregularities.
2004 Ohio Presidential: An expected battleground state, Ohio could have easily become the Florida of 2004. But this was only one state where the Democrats sought to count until they won - even though they still didn't after finding more votes for Kerry.
2008 Minnesota Senate: Democrat Al Franken sues, recounts using inconsistent standards, finds NEW votes, eventually overturns Norm Coleman's clear victory, and claims to be a legitimate winner after months of what can only be described as an inherently flawed process managed by Democrats. Ironic that the Wall Street Journal identified the same tactics being used as Washington 2004.
I could list many more examples of both national races and local races where candidates have claimed victory, and then argued and attempted to recount "irregularities" and selective ballots. We'd like to stop and thank Al Gore for making this all possible. But his actions in 2000 set the stage well beyond the US.
Latest news out of the 2009 Afghan elections is that BOTH candidates are claiming victory. This of course comes on the heels of the political unrest in Iran where both candidates also claimed victory - only to get mired in a sham of a recount even less reliable than ones orchestrated by Democrats.
But let's look at the larger picture...
In 2007, former exiled opposition candidate Benazir Bhutto was assassinated just 12 days before elections in Pakistan.
In 2008, thugs from the New Black Panther Party openly intimidated voters at a precinct in Philadelphia. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder mysteriously dropped pursuit of that case. Interesting... nothing fishy going on there. In fact, the Obama DOJ now appears to be openly obstructing.
In Iraq this summer, elections were peaceful largely due in part to a continued US military presence protecting the process.
In Honduras, President Maneul Zelaya was ousted before the end of his term first by a military coup, and then by the nation's supreme court, because he sought to unilaterally change the nation's Constitution to follow a Chavez-style policy of eliminating term limits, thereby allowing himself to remain president. He even appeared to have winning election results BEFORE the election took place.
In Iranian elections, the "winning" party opted to clash with protesters and even killed to silence opposition.
And now, with renewed violence, we can only imagine what will become of the Afghan elections shortly depending on who is declared the winner.
What is more interesting is the Obama administration's varying responses to each of these situations... often uninformed and inconsistent, to say the least.
So, is this the future of elections? Rampant irregularity in recounting close races? A rewriting, or perhaps whitewashing of the process that leads to victory? Voter intimidation and/or using state police forces against opposing viewpoints? Assassination of opponents? The need for coups to remove arrogant leaders from office?
It appears as though the contentiousness of elections is getting worse, especially in two-party and developing systems. And while we normally have peaceful elections, we export our representative democracy, flaws and all, due to the "new" instant media. America sets the tone. If you think about it, we really didn't hear too much about this type of thing before 2000, but if it's now okay for the US goose, then it must be okay for the global gander.
Not even one year into the Obama presidency, the stakes have been raised so high, that the political fallout and implications of the 2010 elections are already being factored in to how congressional representatives vote on legislation NOW. Never mind what is actually good for the country. Focus on what will get you re-elected.
Once upon a time, there was a small group of men who felt that they were not being fairly represented in the election process. Those men took action, and the process got much uglier before it got better. My fear, with the unquenchable thirst some have for gaining and keeping power, is that we may be headed down a similar path. Town Hall meetings across the country illustrate the anger of the voters who, like those before us, are getting fed up with an elite minority who no longer represent, but seek to control. This type of system cannot survive.
If this is the future of elections, we are in deep trouble, at home and globally. But history bears this out time and time again... and as always, there are those who think that if THEY try it this time, it will finally work. November of 2010 will be a bellwether election in this nation's history... the biggest question is now, is there anyone who is interested in playing fair?
_____
I'd like to think this all started back in 2000 when Al Gore - on his way to concede the presidential election and show the world once again how civilized nations peacefully transfer power - suddenly decides on the advice of a staffer that he should win. This minor decision kicks off a race of epic proportions that has tainted virtually every election since then, both domestic and international. Let's call it the "If at first you don't succeed, sue for selective, inconsistent recounts in precincts where you are likely to add votes" strategy. Dare I say this is the ONLY election where Democrats lost - and even that one was in question. Ever since, they've counted until they've won and then claimed legitimate victory.
Here's a few examples of elections where Democrat candidates have opted not to lose without usurping voter intent through the courts:
2000 Washington Senate: Democrat Maria Cantwell narrowly defeats Slade Gorton by just .09% of the vote. Recounts in heavily Democratic precincts played a role.
2004 Washington Gubernatorial: Democrat Christine Gregoire selectively recounts King County until she overturns the win of opponent Dino Rossi, a Republican. 133 vote margin out of 2.8 million cast. Never mind the irregularities.
2004 Ohio Presidential: An expected battleground state, Ohio could have easily become the Florida of 2004. But this was only one state where the Democrats sought to count until they won - even though they still didn't after finding more votes for Kerry.
2008 Minnesota Senate: Democrat Al Franken sues, recounts using inconsistent standards, finds NEW votes, eventually overturns Norm Coleman's clear victory, and claims to be a legitimate winner after months of what can only be described as an inherently flawed process managed by Democrats. Ironic that the Wall Street Journal identified the same tactics being used as Washington 2004.
I could list many more examples of both national races and local races where candidates have claimed victory, and then argued and attempted to recount "irregularities" and selective ballots. We'd like to stop and thank Al Gore for making this all possible. But his actions in 2000 set the stage well beyond the US.
Latest news out of the 2009 Afghan elections is that BOTH candidates are claiming victory. This of course comes on the heels of the political unrest in Iran where both candidates also claimed victory - only to get mired in a sham of a recount even less reliable than ones orchestrated by Democrats.
But let's look at the larger picture...
In 2007, former exiled opposition candidate Benazir Bhutto was assassinated just 12 days before elections in Pakistan.
In 2008, thugs from the New Black Panther Party openly intimidated voters at a precinct in Philadelphia. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder mysteriously dropped pursuit of that case. Interesting... nothing fishy going on there. In fact, the Obama DOJ now appears to be openly obstructing.
In Iraq this summer, elections were peaceful largely due in part to a continued US military presence protecting the process.
In Honduras, President Maneul Zelaya was ousted before the end of his term first by a military coup, and then by the nation's supreme court, because he sought to unilaterally change the nation's Constitution to follow a Chavez-style policy of eliminating term limits, thereby allowing himself to remain president. He even appeared to have winning election results BEFORE the election took place.
In Iranian elections, the "winning" party opted to clash with protesters and even killed to silence opposition.
And now, with renewed violence, we can only imagine what will become of the Afghan elections shortly depending on who is declared the winner.
What is more interesting is the Obama administration's varying responses to each of these situations... often uninformed and inconsistent, to say the least.
So, is this the future of elections? Rampant irregularity in recounting close races? A rewriting, or perhaps whitewashing of the process that leads to victory? Voter intimidation and/or using state police forces against opposing viewpoints? Assassination of opponents? The need for coups to remove arrogant leaders from office?
It appears as though the contentiousness of elections is getting worse, especially in two-party and developing systems. And while we normally have peaceful elections, we export our representative democracy, flaws and all, due to the "new" instant media. America sets the tone. If you think about it, we really didn't hear too much about this type of thing before 2000, but if it's now okay for the US goose, then it must be okay for the global gander.
Not even one year into the Obama presidency, the stakes have been raised so high, that the political fallout and implications of the 2010 elections are already being factored in to how congressional representatives vote on legislation NOW. Never mind what is actually good for the country. Focus on what will get you re-elected.
Once upon a time, there was a small group of men who felt that they were not being fairly represented in the election process. Those men took action, and the process got much uglier before it got better. My fear, with the unquenchable thirst some have for gaining and keeping power, is that we may be headed down a similar path. Town Hall meetings across the country illustrate the anger of the voters who, like those before us, are getting fed up with an elite minority who no longer represent, but seek to control. This type of system cannot survive.
If this is the future of elections, we are in deep trouble, at home and globally. But history bears this out time and time again... and as always, there are those who think that if THEY try it this time, it will finally work. November of 2010 will be a bellwether election in this nation's history... the biggest question is now, is there anyone who is interested in playing fair?
_____
20 August 2009
Quick Hits
Cash for Clunkers: Is it any real surprise that the government screwed this up worse than we thought? Now, dealers who have errantly bet on the government program are dropping out by the dozens because they are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars that the feds are either slow to pay, or balking at paying because of technicalities. And just today, we hear the program is already in the red... Not surprising at all. We knew it was going to happen. Next up? What will they do when the organic auto sales for the next few months don't happen because they were all condensed into this month? This is what is wrong with government intervention. It is always shortsighted for political gain.
US to begin Off-shore Drilling: ...in BRAZIL. Yes, that's right. Brazil. Never mind that Cuba is bringing in foreign countries to drill within shooting distance of Key West, and that we are too damn stubborn to utilize our own resources here domestically... We are now giving Petrobras a $2 BILLION (yes, with a B) loan so they can advance their own off-shore drilling - and then sell that oil to us at market prices.
Can anyone at all tell me how this benefits: a) American consumers, b) our economy, c) our national security, and d) our presupposed shift to green technology? I think the administration wants to have their cake and eat it too. By doing this with Brazil, we expect to quietly keep oil flowing while placating the green movement with promises of wind and solar - and no drilling domestically. You know, so the deer and antelope can play.
Hope you'd Change: Rasmussen reports did an analysis of that uber-informed bloc of voters under age 30. You know the ones who thought Obama was hip and cool and helped put him in office based on his sound bite platform? Well, Micahel Barone slaps some sense into the "me" generation with a scathing analysis of just how much like every other politician before him the Chosen One is.
Interestingly enough, this has been going on for decades. Go back to the 60's. Young voters have traditionally voted based on little information and usually on non-substantive issues. 2008 was no different. But now we are stuck with their choice or 3 more years. What many of these voters fail to realize is that as they age, they begin to see the fruits of their labor and lean more moderate to conservative. If we could only get that message across much sooner in their coddled little lives.
_____
US to begin Off-shore Drilling: ...in BRAZIL. Yes, that's right. Brazil. Never mind that Cuba is bringing in foreign countries to drill within shooting distance of Key West, and that we are too damn stubborn to utilize our own resources here domestically... We are now giving Petrobras a $2 BILLION (yes, with a B) loan so they can advance their own off-shore drilling - and then sell that oil to us at market prices.
Can anyone at all tell me how this benefits: a) American consumers, b) our economy, c) our national security, and d) our presupposed shift to green technology? I think the administration wants to have their cake and eat it too. By doing this with Brazil, we expect to quietly keep oil flowing while placating the green movement with promises of wind and solar - and no drilling domestically. You know, so the deer and antelope can play.
Hope you'd Change: Rasmussen reports did an analysis of that uber-informed bloc of voters under age 30. You know the ones who thought Obama was hip and cool and helped put him in office based on his sound bite platform? Well, Micahel Barone slaps some sense into the "me" generation with a scathing analysis of just how much like every other politician before him the Chosen One is.
Interestingly enough, this has been going on for decades. Go back to the 60's. Young voters have traditionally voted based on little information and usually on non-substantive issues. 2008 was no different. But now we are stuck with their choice or 3 more years. What many of these voters fail to realize is that as they age, they begin to see the fruits of their labor and lean more moderate to conservative. If we could only get that message across much sooner in their coddled little lives.
_____
In a Nutshell
For those of you who think the government is efficient at running programs and would be well-suited to run a public healthcare program, I present to you sentiment from across the country summarized on one sign:
(hat tip: Charlie Foxtrot)
And if I were Michael Steele or Mitch McConnell, I would come out VERY publicly and dare the Democrats to attempt to force healthcare legislation through by using Reconciliation... The GOP may be in the minority at present, but they are watching the left commit political suicide. Let's just hope that voters will finally learn that the Democrats cannot be trusted to effectively lead when given the chance. They are too ideologically driven and it clouds their judgment and thirst for power.
_____
(hat tip: Charlie Foxtrot)
And if I were Michael Steele or Mitch McConnell, I would come out VERY publicly and dare the Democrats to attempt to force healthcare legislation through by using Reconciliation... The GOP may be in the minority at present, but they are watching the left commit political suicide. Let's just hope that voters will finally learn that the Democrats cannot be trusted to effectively lead when given the chance. They are too ideologically driven and it clouds their judgment and thirst for power.
_____
17 August 2009
Quick Hits
File Under Unnecessary: Okay. I'm a proud gun owner. However, I don't think the 2nd Amendment crowd is doing themselves any favors by openly toting guns near a presidential event.
I know they are seeking to make a political statement - one which I agree with. But regardless of your opinion of the president, there is no good reason to intensify what is always a tough job for the Secret Service to provide security for the President. Security of the President is something I think ALL Americans agree on no matter who is in office. I think that the protest/statement could have been handled differently - especially given the event was to discuss healthcare. Thumbs down on this one...
UN Chief Dabbles in Fear-Mongering: The science is settled. The science is settled.... NO. It isn't. That's the nature of science. It is NEVER settled. For the UN Secretary General to make such politically driven statements regarding the impending doom of climate change is beyond irresponsible, in my opinion.
But, we've known for years now that the UN is a politically driven organization, with many if not all of it's positions being detrimental to the US. How he can predict the costs in terms of "human suffering" is not only impossible, but reckless given his position. If UN member nations want to implement emission standards in their home countries... fine. But one size does not fit all when it comes to this topic.
I've mentioned before China and India's firm resistance to emission controls that would severely damage their economies, but now even our mates in Australia have rejected this type of nonsense. Hopefully we have enough members of Congress who also see that a unilateral implementation of controls on one country would bring disastrous results.
Brett Favre: Just stop it already! You've damaged your legacy as a great quarterback and your success with the Packers. I'm certain you don't need the money, and quite frankly, we're tired of your selfish antics. If you play, I wish you a sub-.500 season and hope you and your team miss the playoffs.
_____
I know they are seeking to make a political statement - one which I agree with. But regardless of your opinion of the president, there is no good reason to intensify what is always a tough job for the Secret Service to provide security for the President. Security of the President is something I think ALL Americans agree on no matter who is in office. I think that the protest/statement could have been handled differently - especially given the event was to discuss healthcare. Thumbs down on this one...
UN Chief Dabbles in Fear-Mongering: The science is settled. The science is settled.... NO. It isn't. That's the nature of science. It is NEVER settled. For the UN Secretary General to make such politically driven statements regarding the impending doom of climate change is beyond irresponsible, in my opinion.
But, we've known for years now that the UN is a politically driven organization, with many if not all of it's positions being detrimental to the US. How he can predict the costs in terms of "human suffering" is not only impossible, but reckless given his position. If UN member nations want to implement emission standards in their home countries... fine. But one size does not fit all when it comes to this topic.
I've mentioned before China and India's firm resistance to emission controls that would severely damage their economies, but now even our mates in Australia have rejected this type of nonsense. Hopefully we have enough members of Congress who also see that a unilateral implementation of controls on one country would bring disastrous results.
Brett Favre: Just stop it already! You've damaged your legacy as a great quarterback and your success with the Packers. I'm certain you don't need the money, and quite frankly, we're tired of your selfish antics. If you play, I wish you a sub-.500 season and hope you and your team miss the playoffs.
_____
15 August 2009
Doing the Right Thing
Every once in a while you have to take a stand that may not set well with those who more often agree with you - or in this case me. Two examples in the news lately call to mind what it means to do the right thing:
Case #1
Al Sharpton & Newt Gingrich team up to tackle Education Reform
First of all, let me say this is an incredibly sore issue for me. It seems like every year on every ballot there are "education initiatives" that result in higher taxes for everyone. However, the quality of education continues to decline year after year. I first, and foremost, place the blame on unaccountable administrators and the unions that fiercely protect unqualified teachers. However, the GOP's notion that school vouchers are the answer simply ignores the problem and absolves them of any responsibility to address the failing public education system (which is a major source breeding government dependence!)
I think the message from this trio, including Arne Duncan - who I'm not entirely crazy about, is valid. I will wait to make any judgments on their sincerity until we see some concrete actions. However, having Al Sharpton demand accountability from parents is a step in the right direction! Education has always been a priority for those in the African-American community, but they've lacked the resources and discipline to demand accountability from their schools and teachers. I'm not expecting this to change overnight, but it is always good to hear people from opposite sides of the political spectrum agreeing on something that affects our kids and their education. If Obama can use his popularity to encourage kids to stay in school and desire to achieve academically, that is a worthwhile venture.
They are doing the right thing.
Case #2
The Philadelphia Eagles sign Michael Vick to a 2-year Contract
I'm certain that I'll be asking "Who let the dogs out?" as people start to question my sanity... BUT... I agree with this move. Originally, I thought it would be a PR nightmare for any team to bother with, and while I'm not entirely certain of the strategic motives related to football, I think Michael Vick deserves a second chance.
First of all, like the verdict or not, he has paid the debt to society the court demanded of him. The man is bankrupt, and most likely has no other way to earn a living. So, why should he be denied a chance to make further amends by using his status to send proper messages about rehabilitation as well as the opportunity to make a living in his chosen profession? He shouldn't.
Many will say he blew the opportunity the first time. But they say that about athletes who make second, third, fourth, and more mistakes. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, infidelity... you name it. They've done it... and they all get another chance. Are we to condemn Rick Pitino as well for his apparently lone mistake? How about young NHL star Patrick Kane? I can say unequivocally that I'd be upset if I was blacklisted in my profession for a serious personal mistake.
I cannot be any more against the terrible and inexcusable activities he was involved in. And in no way do I endorse them by saying he deserves another chance. But, what I have to hope for is that he has learned the value of surrounding himself with quality people who will not use him for his resources. Hopefully he understands the privilege he's being afforded this time and will make the most of it. If he fails and ends up in suspect activity again - on a short leash, no pun intended, then that's it. But otherwise, he has the chance to be a significant success story that illustrates how you need to make the most of your opportunities - especially the FIRST time.
So, while I'm no fan of the team, I say the Philadelphia Eagles are doing the right thing as well.
Doing the right thing is not always popular, but then again, doing the popular thing is not always right. It will be interesting to see how both of these issues play out as people analyze both and provide their own opinions on each. What do you think?
_____
Case #1
Al Sharpton & Newt Gingrich team up to tackle Education Reform
First of all, let me say this is an incredibly sore issue for me. It seems like every year on every ballot there are "education initiatives" that result in higher taxes for everyone. However, the quality of education continues to decline year after year. I first, and foremost, place the blame on unaccountable administrators and the unions that fiercely protect unqualified teachers. However, the GOP's notion that school vouchers are the answer simply ignores the problem and absolves them of any responsibility to address the failing public education system (which is a major source breeding government dependence!)
I think the message from this trio, including Arne Duncan - who I'm not entirely crazy about, is valid. I will wait to make any judgments on their sincerity until we see some concrete actions. However, having Al Sharpton demand accountability from parents is a step in the right direction! Education has always been a priority for those in the African-American community, but they've lacked the resources and discipline to demand accountability from their schools and teachers. I'm not expecting this to change overnight, but it is always good to hear people from opposite sides of the political spectrum agreeing on something that affects our kids and their education. If Obama can use his popularity to encourage kids to stay in school and desire to achieve academically, that is a worthwhile venture.
They are doing the right thing.
Case #2
The Philadelphia Eagles sign Michael Vick to a 2-year Contract
I'm certain that I'll be asking "Who let the dogs out?" as people start to question my sanity... BUT... I agree with this move. Originally, I thought it would be a PR nightmare for any team to bother with, and while I'm not entirely certain of the strategic motives related to football, I think Michael Vick deserves a second chance.
First of all, like the verdict or not, he has paid the debt to society the court demanded of him. The man is bankrupt, and most likely has no other way to earn a living. So, why should he be denied a chance to make further amends by using his status to send proper messages about rehabilitation as well as the opportunity to make a living in his chosen profession? He shouldn't.
Many will say he blew the opportunity the first time. But they say that about athletes who make second, third, fourth, and more mistakes. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, infidelity... you name it. They've done it... and they all get another chance. Are we to condemn Rick Pitino as well for his apparently lone mistake? How about young NHL star Patrick Kane? I can say unequivocally that I'd be upset if I was blacklisted in my profession for a serious personal mistake.
I cannot be any more against the terrible and inexcusable activities he was involved in. And in no way do I endorse them by saying he deserves another chance. But, what I have to hope for is that he has learned the value of surrounding himself with quality people who will not use him for his resources. Hopefully he understands the privilege he's being afforded this time and will make the most of it. If he fails and ends up in suspect activity again - on a short leash, no pun intended, then that's it. But otherwise, he has the chance to be a significant success story that illustrates how you need to make the most of your opportunities - especially the FIRST time.
So, while I'm no fan of the team, I say the Philadelphia Eagles are doing the right thing as well.
Doing the right thing is not always popular, but then again, doing the popular thing is not always right. It will be interesting to see how both of these issues play out as people analyze both and provide their own opinions on each. What do you think?
_____
11 August 2009
White House is Violating Federal Law
I couldn't resist. Ms. Douglass is in over her head... But this snippet makes excellent points. And, as it also points out, you KNOW that the left and the media would be up in arms if Bush did the same.
(hat tip: Doug Ross, rightwingnews.com)
_____
(hat tip: Doug Ross, rightwingnews.com)
_____
08 August 2009
Even Bloggers Need a Vacation
While there is plenty of political fodder to sift through and people to skewer, I'm going to be on hiatus to allow the mind time to regroup and recharge. It will involve lots of driving, but happy destinations. But I'll be back on Thursday with both guns blazing!
_____
_____
04 August 2009
Quick Hits
Project 2996: On September 11th, Project 2996 will flood the blogosphere with personal memorials of those who perished in the twin towers on 9/11. I have signed up to participate and have asked to be assigned up to 5 people. If you, or anyone you know has a blog, it would be one day out of the year to dedicate your space to the memory of fellow Americans who, like you and me, were not just earning a living by going to work that day, but making a life.
"Green" Birth Control: Originally, this idea was concocted by some left-wing loons who clearly think they know what's best for you. Ironic that many of the same folks who are pro-choice (meaning pro-abortion, they just don't like that word), are the very same ones who are now telling you to have fewer kids to save the planet. Well, now they've put a little more work into it and convinced researchers at Oregon State University that it is science worth looking into.
So, couple this with the climate-killing horrors of obesity and divorce (as the article also points out), and not only are those little ones spreading crumbs, but they are spreading greenhouse gases like that life-giving gas CO2.
How long before the progressives think Eugenics is a good idea again? They clearly seek to repeat as many failures of history as possible. I imagine this one has to come around soon.
(Side note: If the wacky environmentalists had any brains, they'd realize their cause is self-defeating. By limiting C02, which is the equivalent of oxygen to plant life, we kill trees. So, reducing greenhouse gases makes the planet LESS green.)
Tax Revenues FALL when Taxes Go UP: But for some reason, all that good information about the Treasury taking in record tax revenues under the Bush tax cuts escaped many Democrats who still believe that they can tax their way to prosperity. Well, Americans seem to think otherwise.
A recent study indicates that tax receipts are estimated to drop 18% this year. So, think of it this way... while tax revenues are dropping by 1/5th, the Democrats want to spend roughly the same amount on public healthcare (never mind that 40 basis point swing in revenue-expense ratio).
Who was in office in 2005? Oh, that's right... George W. Bush. And what tax policy is going to expire at the end of next year? The one that brought record revenues to the government while expanding the economy and GDP. And who's tax policies are already having a detrimental effect on the economy? I think the graph speaks for itself.
Oh, the article also points out that the last time our tax revenue outlook was this rosy, it was 1932... right in the Great Depression. Who is John Galt?
_____
"Green" Birth Control: Originally, this idea was concocted by some left-wing loons who clearly think they know what's best for you. Ironic that many of the same folks who are pro-choice (meaning pro-abortion, they just don't like that word), are the very same ones who are now telling you to have fewer kids to save the planet. Well, now they've put a little more work into it and convinced researchers at Oregon State University that it is science worth looking into.
So, couple this with the climate-killing horrors of obesity and divorce (as the article also points out), and not only are those little ones spreading crumbs, but they are spreading greenhouse gases like that life-giving gas CO2.
How long before the progressives think Eugenics is a good idea again? They clearly seek to repeat as many failures of history as possible. I imagine this one has to come around soon.
(Side note: If the wacky environmentalists had any brains, they'd realize their cause is self-defeating. By limiting C02, which is the equivalent of oxygen to plant life, we kill trees. So, reducing greenhouse gases makes the planet LESS green.)
Tax Revenues FALL when Taxes Go UP: But for some reason, all that good information about the Treasury taking in record tax revenues under the Bush tax cuts escaped many Democrats who still believe that they can tax their way to prosperity. Well, Americans seem to think otherwise.
A recent study indicates that tax receipts are estimated to drop 18% this year. So, think of it this way... while tax revenues are dropping by 1/5th, the Democrats want to spend roughly the same amount on public healthcare (never mind that 40 basis point swing in revenue-expense ratio).
Who was in office in 2005? Oh, that's right... George W. Bush. And what tax policy is going to expire at the end of next year? The one that brought record revenues to the government while expanding the economy and GDP. And who's tax policies are already having a detrimental effect on the economy? I think the graph speaks for itself.
Oh, the article also points out that the last time our tax revenue outlook was this rosy, it was 1932... right in the Great Depression. Who is John Galt?
_____
03 August 2009
Cash for Clunkers - Yet Another Example
It's always refreshing to hear other people say exactly what you are thinking. It means you aren't crazy or screaming into a void.
Here, a voter in Pennsylvania gets her shot at Arlen Specter (??-PA) and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. She asks them why Americans should trust them with a NEW government healthcare program when they have run Medicare and Medicaid into the ground and they can't even run Cash for Clunkers!?
The response is one of sheer indignation of having to tolerate these peasants and a clear intention to push this poorly crafted program ahead... voters be damned. (Besides, we don't know what's good for us anyways... right Andrea?)
_____
Here, a voter in Pennsylvania gets her shot at Arlen Specter (??-PA) and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. She asks them why Americans should trust them with a NEW government healthcare program when they have run Medicare and Medicaid into the ground and they can't even run Cash for Clunkers!?
The response is one of sheer indignation of having to tolerate these peasants and a clear intention to push this poorly crafted program ahead... voters be damned. (Besides, we don't know what's good for us anyways... right Andrea?)
_____
01 August 2009
An Abundance of Arrogance
So much for that "teachable moment". It appears as though our president learned nothing from this episode except that it provided yet another opportunity for him to look like a regular guy on TV for his fawning masses.
Ever want to know who comes first with this President? This picture speaks volumes about being human and also the hubris-driven arrogance of the man in front.
If you ever think this man cares about you, look how he treats his "close" friends. And I seriously don't think there is any way this can be taken out of context... (hat tip: Sharla H.)
Ever want to know who comes first with this President? This picture speaks volumes about being human and also the hubris-driven arrogance of the man in front.
If you ever think this man cares about you, look how he treats his "close" friends. And I seriously don't think there is any way this can be taken out of context... (hat tip: Sharla H.)
31 July 2009
Why Thank You, Eric Cantor!
Many in the blogosphere, namely yours truly, has been calling attention to the endless number of Czars the Obama administration has put in place for an end-around on that pesky Constitution.
First, it was the ever-growing list for things that cabinet level officers should be doing. Then the fact that some were not even doing what we think they were supposed to be doing. Most recently, Steven Rattner decided he would return to private life for various reasons. Yeah, right... things were getting a little too hot with formal investigations into his "private life" alright. This is exactly why Congress confirms those accountable to the President. Oh, by the way, it has a name... Checks and Balances...
But, wait! Is that someone knocking at the door? Hang on a second... Well! Hello Minority Whip Eric Cantor! It's so good to see you! What's that? You've got an opinion on all the Czars published in the Washington Post? Well, by all means, share with the general public ALL that you know!
I'm struggling with the GOP leadership these days as well, so don't paint me into a corner just yet. It seems that Cantor is not just a little, but a lot late to the game on this. Perhaps he should have been tugging a little harder at Minority Leader Boehner's pant leg to get this front and center earlier. The quote showcasing Obama's hypocrisy is great work, but let's see about pressing issues when they are, well, pressing. That's what we expect from those who will be expected to lead in January of 2011.
_____
First, it was the ever-growing list for things that cabinet level officers should be doing. Then the fact that some were not even doing what we think they were supposed to be doing. Most recently, Steven Rattner decided he would return to private life for various reasons. Yeah, right... things were getting a little too hot with formal investigations into his "private life" alright. This is exactly why Congress confirms those accountable to the President. Oh, by the way, it has a name... Checks and Balances...
But, wait! Is that someone knocking at the door? Hang on a second... Well! Hello Minority Whip Eric Cantor! It's so good to see you! What's that? You've got an opinion on all the Czars published in the Washington Post? Well, by all means, share with the general public ALL that you know!
I'm struggling with the GOP leadership these days as well, so don't paint me into a corner just yet. It seems that Cantor is not just a little, but a lot late to the game on this. Perhaps he should have been tugging a little harder at Minority Leader Boehner's pant leg to get this front and center earlier. The quote showcasing Obama's hypocrisy is great work, but let's see about pressing issues when they are, well, pressing. That's what we expect from those who will be expected to lead in January of 2011.
_____
Quick Hits: Health Edition
No More Mosquito Spray - While this was indeed a risky experiment, this is absolutely amazing. Researchers in Europe actually used mosquitoes as "flying vaccinators" to prevent and immunize people from the very malaria they spread. It is still sad that a disease that is mostly gone from industrialized societies still kills so many people in societies that aren't. This is the kind of outside the box thinking that leads to good outcomes.
Have a Coke and a Tax - Here we go again with the nanny state. Lawmakers looking for additional sources of revenue, and seeking ways to legislate better health choices, now want to tax soft drinks and other "sugary" food items to magically transform Americans into models of health.
The article states, "A soda tax would not only help Americans to slim down but could raise revenues that would help to offset the rising sums spent to treat preventable health conditions caused by obesity." Simply not true. Typical politispeak to justify their legislative actions. No similar effort has ever resulted in Americans making better health decisions. Otherwise, many health issues would have been eradicated by high taxes long ago.
The article also quotes New York's Health Commissioner as crediting taxation as the reason smoking rates have dropped. Ever think that people just realize it's a nasty habit, Commish? His validation is incredibly misguided and pure conjecture made to maintain outrageous taxes.
There is no argument that obesity is an epidemic in this country that has far-reaching ramifications on healthcare (imagine what it will do to the public option!). However, as I've heard recently, a tax never made anyone healthy. Look at cigarettes. Taxes continually go up to pay for health programs, but people continue to smoke. It simply doesn't work.
While lawmakers hide their insatiable thirst for more money behind noble causes like making people healthy, they are ignoring the root causes of the obesity crisis. There are few, if any, effective education programs in schools and communities that encourage people to make good choices in food and diet. Marketing by food companies and fast food restaurants have made it easy for people to rationalize their decisions. I won't go into the need to make the nutritional information by restaurants more prominent, but couple that with promoting the benefits of engaging in physical activity, and you've got one heck of a start.
The fact of the matter is that taxing Americans does not change behavior. It never has. So, this is more of the same from elected officials looking to position themselves as protectors of the public good. But until they decide to do something that makes people personally responsible for their own decisions, nothing is going to change except the price at the Coke machine.
_____
Have a Coke and a Tax - Here we go again with the nanny state. Lawmakers looking for additional sources of revenue, and seeking ways to legislate better health choices, now want to tax soft drinks and other "sugary" food items to magically transform Americans into models of health.
The article states, "A soda tax would not only help Americans to slim down but could raise revenues that would help to offset the rising sums spent to treat preventable health conditions caused by obesity." Simply not true. Typical politispeak to justify their legislative actions. No similar effort has ever resulted in Americans making better health decisions. Otherwise, many health issues would have been eradicated by high taxes long ago.
The article also quotes New York's Health Commissioner as crediting taxation as the reason smoking rates have dropped. Ever think that people just realize it's a nasty habit, Commish? His validation is incredibly misguided and pure conjecture made to maintain outrageous taxes.
There is no argument that obesity is an epidemic in this country that has far-reaching ramifications on healthcare (imagine what it will do to the public option!). However, as I've heard recently, a tax never made anyone healthy. Look at cigarettes. Taxes continually go up to pay for health programs, but people continue to smoke. It simply doesn't work.
While lawmakers hide their insatiable thirst for more money behind noble causes like making people healthy, they are ignoring the root causes of the obesity crisis. There are few, if any, effective education programs in schools and communities that encourage people to make good choices in food and diet. Marketing by food companies and fast food restaurants have made it easy for people to rationalize their decisions. I won't go into the need to make the nutritional information by restaurants more prominent, but couple that with promoting the benefits of engaging in physical activity, and you've got one heck of a start.
The fact of the matter is that taxing Americans does not change behavior. It never has. So, this is more of the same from elected officials looking to position themselves as protectors of the public good. But until they decide to do something that makes people personally responsible for their own decisions, nothing is going to change except the price at the Coke machine.
_____
30 July 2009
Hey John Kerry! Are You Listening?
A soldier at an anti-Obamacare rally explains the limits on federal powers outlined in the Constitution while demanding that Claire McCaskill oppose nationlized healthcare. So much for getting stuck in Iraq, eh Senator?
(hat tip: Doug Ross, Hot Air)
_____
(hat tip: Doug Ross, Hot Air)
_____
29 July 2009
The Importance of People Skills
(hat tip: Lance)
But I just created a blog, instead... therapeutic perhaps...
_____
But I just created a blog, instead... therapeutic perhaps..._____
26 July 2009
A Teachable Moment from Decades of Lies
UPDATE 7/28: I'm proud to have the company of Glenn Beck who also calls it like he sees it. Are we still a "nation of cowards" now, Mr. Holder?
UPDATE 7/27: The police report and 911 tapes suggest that the only person discussing race was Professor Gates, when he refused to show proof of ID or residence. The chip on his shoulder must have fallen off when he used it on his locked front door.
_____
While I'm fairly certain Obama's immediate reaction was a clear reflection of his attitudes towards law enforcement, the backtracking provided a glimpse into the damage control the White House flew into given the heated nature of his response.
However, Doug Ross drills down on how the administration's (and Obama's) lack of post-racial policy is being overshadowed by sound bites and platitudes - all of which the media is too happy to accept at face value.
The following quote was attributed to Charles Barkley; "Poor people have been voting for Democrats for 50 years... And they're still poor." Well, here's why...
(hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
UPDATE 7/27: The police report and 911 tapes suggest that the only person discussing race was Professor Gates, when he refused to show proof of ID or residence. The chip on his shoulder must have fallen off when he used it on his locked front door.
_____
While I'm fairly certain Obama's immediate reaction was a clear reflection of his attitudes towards law enforcement, the backtracking provided a glimpse into the damage control the White House flew into given the heated nature of his response.
However, Doug Ross drills down on how the administration's (and Obama's) lack of post-racial policy is being overshadowed by sound bites and platitudes - all of which the media is too happy to accept at face value.
The following quote was attributed to Charles Barkley; "Poor people have been voting for Democrats for 50 years... And they're still poor." Well, here's why...
(hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
25 July 2009
The Wisdom of Simplicity
Regarding the Gates-Crowley dustup in Cambridge this week, there are so many factors, he said / he said, pundits opinions, etc., that it really takes a snapshot to sum it all up. Once again, Michael Ramirez hits the bullseye:
Personally, given the fact that Dr. Gates is a Professor at Harvard, and that we supposedly elected the first post-racial President, I'm finding a lot of difficulty seeing this as a racial incident framed in the Civil Rights era mindset - especially in light of the stated facts and police report. It is, however, ultimately for the individual to decide, but affects us all in how we interact as different races.
Additionally, the usually harsh Ann Coulter, steps back from the abyss and provides a thought-provoking, simple approach to the healthcare "crisis" that has lasted the past 50 years... Like her or not, I strongly encourage you to check it out.
_____
Personally, given the fact that Dr. Gates is a Professor at Harvard, and that we supposedly elected the first post-racial President, I'm finding a lot of difficulty seeing this as a racial incident framed in the Civil Rights era mindset - especially in light of the stated facts and police report. It is, however, ultimately for the individual to decide, but affects us all in how we interact as different races.
Additionally, the usually harsh Ann Coulter, steps back from the abyss and provides a thought-provoking, simple approach to the healthcare "crisis" that has lasted the past 50 years... Like her or not, I strongly encourage you to check it out.
_____
23 July 2009
5 Questions for Obama
I too would like a simple answer to these simple questions...
_____
Jim DeMint's Five Questions for President Obama:
1. "If the major provisions of the health care bills will not kick in until 2013, four years from now, why the hurry to pass a thousand-page bill before the August recess; a bill you admit that you haven’t fully read yourself?"
2. "You have said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But, independent analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts both claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion in the first ten years. What independent analysis will you provide that supports your claims and refutes CBO's?"
3. "You have repeatedly said that your health care bill allows any American who likes their current employer-based plan to keep it. But the most comprehensive independent analysis available, by the Lewin Group, contradicts your claim and found your bill will force over 80 million Americans to lose their current coverage. Will you provide independent analysis to refute this study?"
4. "Your own record in the Senate reveals you spent years voting against nearly every reform to make health care more affordable and accessible, but this week you said that opponents of your plan are 'content to perpetuate the status quo, and are, in fact, fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests.' Which specific elected officials will you cite that have proposed to keep the status quo, and is that how you characterize the opposition of the 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House...?"
5. "Yes or no question: Will you guarantee pro-life Americans that, under your plan, they will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions?"
_____
A 6th, and very important question should be, "Will your legislation require that you, your family, White House staff, and all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and their staffs participate in the public plan that will be required of all citizens?"
(Hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
_____
Jim DeMint's Five Questions for President Obama:
1. "If the major provisions of the health care bills will not kick in until 2013, four years from now, why the hurry to pass a thousand-page bill before the August recess; a bill you admit that you haven’t fully read yourself?"
2. "You have said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But, independent analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts both claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion in the first ten years. What independent analysis will you provide that supports your claims and refutes CBO's?"
3. "You have repeatedly said that your health care bill allows any American who likes their current employer-based plan to keep it. But the most comprehensive independent analysis available, by the Lewin Group, contradicts your claim and found your bill will force over 80 million Americans to lose their current coverage. Will you provide independent analysis to refute this study?"
4. "Your own record in the Senate reveals you spent years voting against nearly every reform to make health care more affordable and accessible, but this week you said that opponents of your plan are 'content to perpetuate the status quo, and are, in fact, fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests.' Which specific elected officials will you cite that have proposed to keep the status quo, and is that how you characterize the opposition of the 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House...?"
5. "Yes or no question: Will you guarantee pro-life Americans that, under your plan, they will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions?"
_____
A 6th, and very important question should be, "Will your legislation require that you, your family, White House staff, and all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and their staffs participate in the public plan that will be required of all citizens?"
(Hat tip: Doug Ross)
_____
If I Were President...
I often like to think of the viability of a TRUE third party. Perhaps a party based on simple common sense. I think it would do wonders by providing some much needed oil for the tired machinations of today's DC. As they say, "Some people go to Washington to do good. Most go to Washington to do well."
A good friend of mine, Nathan G., sent me an email with a few good ideas on how to whip Washington into shape. I think we all agree that government has the extraordinary power to do great things for its citizens. But the corruptocrats currently abusing us have bastardized our Constitution in such a way that makes high school class officers look more competent.
A potential peek into the future? I yield the floor to my esteemed colleague from Virginia:
_____
If I ran the show out here in Washington, D.C., I have a few ideas which would need to be addressed...
TERM LIMITS. TERM LIMITS. TERM LIMITS....THIS IS FIRST AND FOREMOST... NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, will be passed through that dysfunctional Palace on the Potomac (The Capital) until maximums of 2 terms are legislated for Senators and 4 terms for Representatives....'Bye Bye Birdie' to the days of career politicians. As a result, more Americans will be inclined to SERVE in public office and true representation will take place.
Just like every citizen in the country, we balance our federal budget. And that is the 2nd #1 priority.
My inaugural address will be about 3 minutes long, because I would demand every Representative and Senator to be in their seats within 20 minutes ready to vote on term limits. And if a member votes 'PRESENT', that person’s congressional pay will be docked each time they do. We don't send them to DC to occupy a seat. If a service member can have it done to their pay, elected officials to the House and Senate are also not immune.
I would make it known far and wide that no more subsidies will be doled out from the Federal Budget to Non Profits and Non-Governmental Organizations. The likes of ACORN need to wither and die and the same goes for Conservative leaning types as well. If you feel so strong about your so called 'issue'...then get off your butt and raise the money yourself! Millions of charitable organizations do it daily. What? Not enough? Too bad. Combine resources with another group. I heard Harvard has a HUGE endowment. Go beg from them.
US Foreign Aid is provided to ‘approved’ nations based upon a percentage of their population. Yes, Djibouti would get far less than say, Ethiopia. Still, we make it clear and set the example that if you squander away US Money or aid in any method, it will be yanked from your coffers and you will learn how to reap what you sow. Suckling from Momma America has been going on far too long. Our taxes benefit OUR citizens before we assist others.
If Israel wants (or needs) to BOMB a country deeper into the Stone Ages...let them. They are big boys and girls and they know what repercussions will happen if they do something unprovoked. But, if another nation does something to Israel first, then we should just whistle past the graveyard.
All federal agencies, besides the military, will be drawn down by 10% my first year in office. That’s how you save money in a bloated government. However, the military will also be held responsible for their spending. No more “Billion Dollar Bullets”. We love you Department of Defense, but you need to run a tighter ship!
Amtrak will no longer be federally funded or subsidized. No more intervention by Congress and you are free to make and live by your own decisions. If you fail, sell those rail cars to Kim Jong Ill. His eyesore of a country could use them.
Bio-Fuels Industry... Go talk to T. Boone Pickens about his wind farm project. Meanwhile, crank up the drills at home.
Any director of a federal agency will make no more than half of what the President makes. No bonuses, no perks. You’re serving the public, not here to get rich on the taxpayer dime. Want to make tons of money? Go earn it elsewhere.
Bailouts will never happen again. Companies must lie in the beds they make. Want to play big shot, Mr. CEO? Live with the consequences. Shareholders can be vengeful people. Private enterprises are not owned by the Feds. Whether they run a company well or poorly...not a government issue unless they are breaking the law – in which case, we drop the hammer of justice on them and protect Main Street.
TORT REFORM...the “John Edwards” of the world need to earn an honest living, and that doesn’t happen by whimsically suing everyone under the sun. For the attorney who files and loses a frivolous lawsuit, you pay all costs to all parties associated with the process. Oh, and you’re disbarred for at least 1 year. HELLO HEALTH CARE COST REDUCTION!!!
Lastly, public BBQ's on the South Lawn!
_____
A good friend of mine, Nathan G., sent me an email with a few good ideas on how to whip Washington into shape. I think we all agree that government has the extraordinary power to do great things for its citizens. But the corruptocrats currently abusing us have bastardized our Constitution in such a way that makes high school class officers look more competent.
A potential peek into the future? I yield the floor to my esteemed colleague from Virginia:
_____
If I ran the show out here in Washington, D.C., I have a few ideas which would need to be addressed...
TERM LIMITS. TERM LIMITS. TERM LIMITS....THIS IS FIRST AND FOREMOST... NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, will be passed through that dysfunctional Palace on the Potomac (The Capital) until maximums of 2 terms are legislated for Senators and 4 terms for Representatives....'Bye Bye Birdie' to the days of career politicians. As a result, more Americans will be inclined to SERVE in public office and true representation will take place.
Just like every citizen in the country, we balance our federal budget. And that is the 2nd #1 priority.
My inaugural address will be about 3 minutes long, because I would demand every Representative and Senator to be in their seats within 20 minutes ready to vote on term limits. And if a member votes 'PRESENT', that person’s congressional pay will be docked each time they do. We don't send them to DC to occupy a seat. If a service member can have it done to their pay, elected officials to the House and Senate are also not immune.
I would make it known far and wide that no more subsidies will be doled out from the Federal Budget to Non Profits and Non-Governmental Organizations. The likes of ACORN need to wither and die and the same goes for Conservative leaning types as well. If you feel so strong about your so called 'issue'...then get off your butt and raise the money yourself! Millions of charitable organizations do it daily. What? Not enough? Too bad. Combine resources with another group. I heard Harvard has a HUGE endowment. Go beg from them.
US Foreign Aid is provided to ‘approved’ nations based upon a percentage of their population. Yes, Djibouti would get far less than say, Ethiopia. Still, we make it clear and set the example that if you squander away US Money or aid in any method, it will be yanked from your coffers and you will learn how to reap what you sow. Suckling from Momma America has been going on far too long. Our taxes benefit OUR citizens before we assist others.
If Israel wants (or needs) to BOMB a country deeper into the Stone Ages...let them. They are big boys and girls and they know what repercussions will happen if they do something unprovoked. But, if another nation does something to Israel first, then we should just whistle past the graveyard.
All federal agencies, besides the military, will be drawn down by 10% my first year in office. That’s how you save money in a bloated government. However, the military will also be held responsible for their spending. No more “Billion Dollar Bullets”. We love you Department of Defense, but you need to run a tighter ship!
Amtrak will no longer be federally funded or subsidized. No more intervention by Congress and you are free to make and live by your own decisions. If you fail, sell those rail cars to Kim Jong Ill. His eyesore of a country could use them.
Bio-Fuels Industry... Go talk to T. Boone Pickens about his wind farm project. Meanwhile, crank up the drills at home.
Any director of a federal agency will make no more than half of what the President makes. No bonuses, no perks. You’re serving the public, not here to get rich on the taxpayer dime. Want to make tons of money? Go earn it elsewhere.
Bailouts will never happen again. Companies must lie in the beds they make. Want to play big shot, Mr. CEO? Live with the consequences. Shareholders can be vengeful people. Private enterprises are not owned by the Feds. Whether they run a company well or poorly...not a government issue unless they are breaking the law – in which case, we drop the hammer of justice on them and protect Main Street.
TORT REFORM...the “John Edwards” of the world need to earn an honest living, and that doesn’t happen by whimsically suing everyone under the sun. For the attorney who files and loses a frivolous lawsuit, you pay all costs to all parties associated with the process. Oh, and you’re disbarred for at least 1 year. HELLO HEALTH CARE COST REDUCTION!!!
Lastly, public BBQ's on the South Lawn!
_____
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
