About Me

Name: RME KRNL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Obama: The equal opportunity "bower"


Remember when maybe you and I and a lot of other people were upset by President Obama, on one of his "America Is a Bad Country" apology tours earlier this year, bowing to the Saudi king? Of course, afterward, Obama and his White House henchmen tried their equivalent of "don't believe your lying eyes," with everything from, no, he was bending down to shake the hand of a short guy to, no, he was picking up a piece of paper from the floor. Yeah, right. Well, it seems he's at least somewhat of an equal opportunity "bower," because he also bowed to the Emperor of Japan on his current trip to the Far East.

Breaking from Newsmax.com

I don't remember U.S. presidents bowing to anyone before. Being polite, yes. Shaking hands, yes. Being gracious and friendly, yes. Sometimes even hugging people, yes. But bowing, no. I don't know if it's Obama's lack of understanding protocol or lack of backbone, coupled with too much interest or eagerness in currying favor, but I don't like my president -- uh, pardon me, the U.S. president -- bowing to anybody. A head nod, okay. Bending deeply from the waist, no.

Besides, if he's going to bow to a Saudi king and a Japanese emperor, why didn't he also bow to the British queen -- you know, the one to whom he so thoughtfully gave a collection of his best speeches and whose Prime Minister he insulted with DVDs which wouldn't even play on European equipment? I mean, although Japan is an ally now, Britain has been a faithful ally for much longer. (Japan only since we finished beating the dickens out of them in 1945; Britain since we finished beating the dickens out of them in 1783 -- but not Dickens himself, who came along later, thank goodness.)
 
So, is it a "guy" thing, where he will bow to male royalty but not to female royalty? Well, if so, how un-metrosexual is that, Mr. Super Cool, Post-Everything Prez? (Hmmm, does that mean you're a closet chauvinist? And, if so, what other kind of closeted this or that are you? And don't tell us about the liberal, socialist-Marxist thing. We've already figured that one out.)

No, Mr. President, it's better to (now, finally) keep wearing your U.S. flag pin, putting your hand over your heart whenever the National Anthem is played or our National Colors pass by, returning military salutes to the military if you like, but don't bow to anybody. Our country doesn't, or at least it hasn't so far, and neither should you.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Geez, Louise! He's a MUSLIM TERRORIST -- OKAY?!!


[I know, at this stage of things, with no trial yet, much less a conviction, that this and that is supposed to be "alleged" or "allegedly" and that "accused" and "subject" are supposed to be used, but if you want to apply those, you just plug them in where appropriate as you read, because I'm not going to worry about all that in this case.]

Well, I wasn't going to write anything about this, because as an old soldier and former Military Police officer I've got a lot of strong feelings and opinions about it, but it's finally gotten to a point where, with some of the other things I'm hearing said and claimed and assumed about it, I'll probably kick the dog, break something or shoot something if I don't write something. And now that I am, I'll probably write a lot.

Just say it, already: "Muslim terrorist." Say it again: "Muslim terrorist." There, see? Not really all that bad, was it? Well, not, that is, unless you have developed an absolute gag reflex to saying the word "terrorist," much less the phrase "Muslim terrorist," like Barack Obama's White House, Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security, and, most recently it seems, the U.S. Army, or at least its top "leadership" in the form of General George W. Casey, Jr., current Chief of Staff of the Army.

It was a surreal few moments when, within three hours of Major (Dr.) Nidal Malik Hasan committing mass murder at Fort Hood on Thursday, November 5, 2009, President Obama first appeared before TV cameras in joining a meeting of Native Americans already ongoing at the White House. He spent the first few minutes giving "shoutouts," that is recognizing people in the audience before him, to include crediting one individual for receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor (a military award) who had never served in the military but who Obama himself had presented with the Freedom Medal (a civilian award) just months before (uh, right person, wrong award, Mr. President -- see what happens when you go off teleprompter?).

Then, he praised the Native American group's work on whatever it was they had been working on and pledged his undying support for what almost sounded like reparations for Native Americans for how badly they had been treated ("by the white man" was of course implied or at least understood). I guess he was "identifying" with them about their ancestors' dispossession, much as he, as a black man, no doubt "identifies" with his ancestors' slavery. (I can "identify," too, by the way, less because of some idealistic notion than because I actually am part Cherokee.)

Those first few minutes sounded like Obama was speaking before the local chapter of the Rotary Club. Then, he finally addressed the Fort Hood massacre, his main message being that we didn't know all the facts yet and should be careful not to jump to conclusions. (Maybe he did learn his lesson after all, after having jumped to conclusions himself about the professional white police sergeant arresting the big mouthed black college professor.) I don't recall now if Obama identified the Fort Hood murderer as a Muslim at that time, but I do clearly recall that the words "terrorist" or "terrorist attack" never passed his lips.

Then, later in the afternoon, we had another surreal TV appearance, this time by Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, who said: "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here." What?! A greater tragedy?! Now, General Casey was talking about the shooter being Muslim, because he was making the point that we have and need Muslims in the Army and he was trying to forestall any backlash against Muslims in the military because the Fort Hood shooter had by then been named as a Muslim.....but, ah, still not as a terrorist. But "our diversity" being damaged would be an even greater tragedy than the mass murder of unarmed, innocent soldiers and civilians on an Army post?! This from the top "leadership" of our Army?! Are you nuts, General? Hmmm, sounds like the good general had been given his talking points by the White House and was being a good little general. Notably, he also did not say anything resembling the "T" word.

Well, let's hear it for political correctness by Obama, the White House AND the military, shall we? Maybe a whole bunch of PC by a whole bunch of people is what led to, or at least permitted, if not enabled, what Major Hasan did at Fort Hood. I've often said that I'm not too much of a PC guy, but I will be one of the first to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It seems, however, that a lot of PC and giving too much benefit of the doubt are what left Major Hasan free to do his killing.

Why was a medical officer who was supposed to give a major medical presentation to his doctor colleagues at Walter Reed Army Medical Center allowed instead to give an hour-long Power Point presentation about Islam? Why was an Army officer who often clashed with his peers and some of his superiors over the Army's missions in Iraq and Afghanistan not disciplined, or at least severely questioned about it? Why was an officer whose performance was lackluster and who had that verified in his Officer Efficiency Reports (OERs) still promoted to major? Could it be that something like "affirmative action" or "minority quotas" had anything to do with Army promotion boards? Why was a psychiatrist who was counseling soldiers returning from combat zones, many suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), not also counseled himself? If his links to a radical Islamic imam and attempts to contact al-Qaeda were already known to the FBI for months, why wasn't he on some kind of watch list which would have prevented his going into a Killeen, Texas, gun shop in August and paying over $1,000 to buy a state-of-the-art FNH FiveseveN (5.7mm) semi-automatic pistol which comes with three 20-round magazines but for which you can also pay a little extra and get 30-round magazines? My gosh, if you get the 30-round mags, plus already have a round in the pistol's chamber, you're walking around with 91 rounds of ready-to-go firepower. 

Since that surreal Thursday morning more than a week ago now, I've listened to and seen much of the print and TV coverage about the Fort Hood massacre, what there has been of it by the so-called mainstream media, and noticed how the lamestream media have also avoided using the "T" word, much less coupled it with the modifier "Muslim" or "jihadist," and Heaven forbid that anyone should utter "Islamofascist," despite the fact that, with each passing day, more and more has come to light about Hasan's association with his former radical Muslim imam and attempts to contact al-Qaeda. In fact, some in the liberal media, out of their usual misguided "compassion" and "humanity," have predictably tried to make Hasan into some kind of victim.

For those who are covering the Fort Hood massacre at all, and especially for those who are covering it but ignoring or downplaying that the killer is a Muslim or who are trying to make the mass murderer out to be some kind of "victim," I have this to say:

Major (Dr.) Nidal Malik Hasan's shouting "Allahu akbar," the universal battle cry of fanatic Muslim jihadists, as he began gunning down 13 people, 12 soldiers and one civilian (or maybe that should be 14, since one of the women he killed was pregnant), and wounding another 30 unsuspecting, unarmed and defenseless people, was not a random act of violence by an Army psychiatrist who "snapped" but by one scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan, where American infidels are killing good Muslims. Hasan knew what he was doing, he planned what he did, and he shot down his fellow soldiers in cold blood, reloading and stalking some wounded to shoot them again. He wanted, in his mind, to die a martyr, killing American soldiers who had been, or would soon be, killing Muslim soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
(Oh, and here's something really un-PC for you: about that dying as a martyr thing, now that we know instead of being killed at the scene himself that he's unfortunately survived being shot, my .45 and I would be glad to assist him with that. Like Richard Boone's TV Paladin -- have gun, will travel. Would be my privilege to kill an enemy of my country. Save the Army a lot of court martial money, too.)
 
The claim by some in the liberal media that Major Hasan had PTSD when he's never even been deployed, much less to a combat zone, is both ridiculous and obscene. Ridiculous on its face and obscene for those who do legitimately suffer from it, because they've "earned" it by what they've been through. Deployment to a combat zone is what he was soon facing for the first time and was so scared of, the coward. What do the liberals think, that because, as an Army psychiatrist, he counseled some returning soldiers who did have PTSD that it's something you can "catch," like a cold? What idiots! Counseling somebody about PTSD doesn't give you PTSD, any more than it will give you the "thousand yard stare" or make you into that "strange" guy in your unit who sits alone in a corner mumbling to himself and forever sharpening his bayonet whenever he's not out on patrol.
 
No, no, no! All that lamestream media stuff and continuing PC stuff is BS. Major Hasan did not "snap." He was not a "victim." Whatever stress he was under pales by comparison to those with PTSD whom he was charged to counsel and help. He is a Muslim, and it looks like a radicalized Muslim. He did commit not only a criminal but also a terrorist act. Not all criminal acts are terrorist acts, but all terrorist acts subsume lesser included criminal acts. That kind of distinction is what differentiates killing, or homicide, which may sometimes be justified, as in self-defense, from murder. What elevates them to acts of terrorism is that they are usually horrific, are designed to terrify and are driven by some theological or ideological "cause" or "rationale." Major Hasan is therefore, whatever else he is, a Muslim terrorist, pure and simple, and no amount of PC or any more giving of the benefit of the doubt can change that.
 
Because he's a Muslim terrorist, because he's also an Army officer, and because he didn't die when he should have after being shot at the scene of his killing spree, I'm glad that he's now been charged by the Army (not by anyone else) with 13 counts of premeditated murder (should be 14, as stated above), and will be tried by a military court martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It's now being reported that his lawyer, part of whose actual job it is to make Hasan out to be some kind of victim if he can, says that Major Hasan may be paralyzed from the waist down and never walk again. Well, first, boo-hoo. Poor baby. There are at least 13 other people who will never walk again, or breathe again, either, and some of the recovering wounded who will never walk as well again, also. Second, since he didn't die at the scene as he should have, I hope he can walk again, because I want to see him convicted, sentenced to death and -- what I would really like -- publicly hanged. So, I want him to be able to walk up the gallows steps to be hooded by the hangman and have the hemp noose put around his neck.
 
I'm just wondering, though, even given the 13 counts of premeditated murder, where is the charge of treason?  Hasan betrayed his trust as a doctor, as a psychiatrist, as an Army officer, and as an American citizen in gunning down his fellow soldiers and other unarmed, unsuspecting and innocent people, on not only American soil but also on a military post, of all places. I can think of few acts more treasonous.
 
On a brighter note, Killeen, Texas, the home of Fort Hood, is also the home of Sgt. Kimberly Munley, a North Carolina native, the 34-year-old, 5-foot-2-inch, 120-pound wife of a Fort Bragg Green Beret and mother of three, an Army veteran and a 2-year member of the Department of Defense civilian police force at Fort Hood.

She is also obviously an expert shot and a petite female version of any one of Clint Eastwood's characters on whose bad side you would NOT want to be. "Well, do ya,.....punk?"

The story goes that Sgt. Munley was nearby getting her car tuned up when the 911 call came in. Without waiting for backup, she was the first law enforcement official to arrive on the scene at Fort Hood, engaged the shooter and was wounded but kept returning fire until the shooter went down.
 
"She Fired Until He Dropped. The Killing Ended."
 
Much has already been written about Sgt. Munley's bravery, but one of the best descriptions of her behavior in the heat of confronting the Fort Hood mass murderer was by the editorial writers at the Las Vegas Review-Sun:

"Could Sgt. Munley, hit in the wrist and both thighs, really be blamed if she'd ducked for cover? She didn't. From all reports, she stood her ground under fire, calmly reacquiring her sight picture, putting four rounds right where she wanted, in the advancing murderer's center of mass. She fired until he dropped. The killing ended."

Since this account, it has now been reported that another DOD civilian police sergeant also responded to the scene of Hasan's killing spree and engaged and shot him, and that Sgt. Munley was already wounded and on the ground by that time, which makes it sound like perhaps Sgt. Munley didn't fire until Hasan dropped, but that the second police official did.
 
As an old soldier whose career as a Military Police officer was spent first in law enforcement and later increasingly as a security expert in physical security (facilities and area security) and still later in personal (VIP) security, with a short stint commanding an Army stockade (prison), as well as 13 months in the exotic Far East (Vietnam), thrown in for good measure, I don't understand all the confusion about what happened at the scene with the police officials, especially now more than a week later.
 
I mean, I personally know such scenes can be chaotic at the time and for quite a while afterward. And I know that if you want 10 different descriptions of what happened, ask 10 different witnesses. I also know that, in the heat of things, sometimes when you think you hit something you fired at, you missed, or you may not even remember exactly how many shots you fired. Adrenaline's pumping and you're just aiming and pulling the trigger, hoping to make it all stop.
 
But I also know that: (a) there is the United States Army Criminal Investigation Division Command (USACIDC), sort of like the Army's version of the FBI, just as the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is for the Navy and Marines, (b) that most Army posts have CID detachments and a post as large as Fort Hood should have a pretty large one, plus the FBI itself was involved in some of the on-scene investigation in this case, (c) that CID should have been on the scene pretty quickly, and (d) that there are such things as ballistics tests and other forensics, which should be able to pin down almost exactly what happened, in what order, and by whom.
 
It's been definitely reported that Hasan was shot four times and no doubt that the bullets were removed by medical personnel at the hospital, unless some of them were, as we call them, "through-and-throughs." We know that, in addition to Hasan himself, only the two responding police officials were armed and that one or possibly both of them fired at him until he went down. We know that the police were no doubt armed with their government issue US M9 Berretta 92FS 9mm semi-automatic pistols, and it's known how many rounds that weapon holds.
 
So, what you do, in addition to collecting eyewitness statements, is verify that each of the police sergeants' weapons has in fact been fired, count the number of rounds fired from each of their weapons, account for any stray rounds which missed their target, and that should come out to the four rounds which hit Hasan. Simple, huh? It's also been long enough now that the bullets removed from Hasan at the hospital should have been ballistics tested, which will show exactly which of the police weapons each bullet came from.
 
(And I also know that if they had been armed with the old .45 caliber M1911 Colt semi-automatic pistol like I used to carry, or a more updated version thereof, instead of 9mm's, Hasan would have gone down quicker, probably with fewer shots and probably also been "deader." A .45 round -- the size of a nickel going in and, depending on certain circumstances, your fist coming out. Maybe that's why the Army is now considering going back to .45's instead of the 9mm's. But that's all another issue.)
 
Okay, almost done now. But I can't neglect one of my favorite people in the Obama administration, his inept and inarticulate Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet "it's not terrorism; it's acts of man-made disaster" Napolitano, who was strangely quiet for most of the week following the Fort Hood massacre (but maybe not so strangely, as in lying low) but who, when she did finally emerge and make comments, also assiduously avoided any reference to the "T" word and talked about the most important thing now being that Hasan be brought to justice for his "criminal" acts.
 
NOOO, MADAME SECRETARY!  Wrong -- AGAIN! NOT merely CRIMINAL! TERRORIST! TERRORIST, dammit! Brought to justice for his TERRORIST acts! Ughhh!!
 
And one of YOUR "most important" things to worry about should be what part YOUR department played, along with other federal agencies, in NOT preventing his terrorism. I mean, isn't that what your whole, big bureaucratic department was created to do -- prevent acts of terrorism from happening on American soil again? No wonder you "hid out" for most of the week. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Judge David Hamilton, Obama's Liberal Federal Circuit Court Nominee

 
[President Obama has nominated a very liberal judge (big surprise) for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the nominee's Senate confirmation is being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry "wave the white flag" Reid and could take place by next Tuesday. Below is the email I just sent both of my senators. Perhaps you want to alert your senators, too. If so, it's easy. Just go to a Web site like www.Congress.org and look up your senators, then email them. Feel free to use my email as a template or simply copy and paste, if you like.]
 
Dear Senator So-and-so:
 
Vote NO on Judge David Hamilton.

Judge Hamilton, a district court judge and President Obama's nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, has been cited by that very court for abusing his power as a judge. In 1994, the 7th Circuit rebuked Judge Hamilton for denying a Rabbi the right to display a Menorah as part of an Indianapolis holiday display.

In 2005, Judge Hamilton prohibited the Indiana House of Representatives from praying if Jesus' name was mentioned, but said praying in Allah's name was perfectly fine. I am a Christian and hold a Juris Doctorate degree and that is NOT "fine" with me. Where's the equity? If you're going to allow one, allow the other. If you're going to disallow one, disallow both.

For all those who try, for their own purposes, to blur the lines about the constitutional "church versus state" prohibition, it should be remembered that our Founders weren't creating a secular state but a sectarian-free state -- and there is a big difference. There is no constitutional prohibition about religious references of any kind being expressed in the public forum, only that the government cannot support one religion over another.

Judge Hamilton is also one of the most lenient judges in America when it comes to crime and criminals. In United States v. Rinehart, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 19498 (S.D. Ind. Feb 2, 2007), Judge Hamilton used his opinion to request clemency for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of child pornography. The 32-year-old officer had engaged in "consensual" sex with two teenagers and videotaped his activities. Depending on the ages of the teenagers at the time of the offense, most states have laws which preclude teenagers from having the legal ability to "consent." That's where the crime of statutory rape comes into play. In any event, a police officer, breaching his public trust, having videotaped sex with teenagers and pleading guilty to pornography for it, does not warrant anyone's recommendation for clemency, much less that of a federal judge sworn to uphold the law, punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

In United States v. Woolsey, 535 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit Court itself, as recently as 2008, faulted Judge Hamilton for disregarding an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender.

We don't need liberal, lenient federal judges and we don't need activist federal judges. We just need federal judges who know the law and apply it equitably in every circumstance to every individual. Vote NO on Judge Hamilton's confirmation.
 
Sincerely,
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ripped from the headlines...


...of the normally liberal LA Times, no less, November 8, 2009: "Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News"

A Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox News, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again.

Hmmm, I guess the White House's "war" with Fox News is still ongoing, albeit the one in Afghanistan -- you know, the "good" war, the "necessary" war, the one where soldiers are dying? -- is still on "hold." No doubt just another instance of Obama being "nuanced" and "multi-tasking," however.
 
But now the White House war with Fox seems to have escalated in a way, because it's gone from publicly denouncing the most powerful cable news channel as a whole and as a large organization down to contacting and threatening individuals, even if they're Democrats. Makes one wonder just how paranoid and petty Team Obama really is about anyone who criticizes it at all. Well, so much for freedom of speech and maybe the right to freely associate as well.

He said the call had an intimidating tone. The message was, "We better not see you on again." An implicit suggestion, the strategist said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

White House Communications Director Anita "I love Mao Tse Tung" Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. This from a woman who lumps mass murderer Mao Tse Tung and Saint Mother Theresa together as her two favorite political philosophers and who does strange things with her tongue when giving a public speech. Maybe that's because it's forked, but I don't know for sure.

So, when she was asked about it, maybe she just checked with those "colleagues who deal with TV issues" that she already knew had not told people to avoid Fox. That way, her statement would be "technically true," don't you see? This president and this White House play that "technically not lying" game all the time. With them, and some other liberals, prevarication by parsing words is not a past-time; it's a passionately practiced procedure.

Oh, and in a related matter:

POLITICO's Michael Calderone reports that President Obama met with several journalists for lunch last Friday at the White House.

The attendees were: CNN's David Gergen, Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Howard Fineman, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker, POLITICO's Mike Allen, NPR/ Fox's Mara Liasson, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall and New York Times trio David Brooks, Andy Rosenthal, and Gail Collins.
 
(What? You mean Glenn Beck wasn't there? Of course, he's not a "journalist," you know, and rather proudly doesn't claim to be. He's just been digging up and reporting on stuff the "journalists" won't. But, hmmm, so Fox News' Bret Baier and Sheppard Smith had conflicts, too, huh? Imagine that.) 

Administration officials David Axelrod (Senior Advisor), Anita Dunn (Communications Director), Bill Burton (Deputy Communications Director) and Robert Gibbs (Press Secretary) also attended. (Hey, why not? Free lunch, literally.)

The off-the-record lunch lasted about two hours, and included a green salad, halibut and a pear tart for dessert.

How nice! Well, first I'm just "dying" to know what they had to drink with that delicious sounding lunch. Kool-aid, perhaps? And did NYT's David Brooks check out the sharp crease in Obama's pants again -- to make sure he's still going to be an excellent president? No, don't tell me.

Second, I'm wondering why they all met in a government building, ate a meal prepared and served by government employees, at taxpayer's expense, and several government employees (yes, I mean the prez and gang) were present, yet the meeting was "off the record"? I'm guessing that's the only way they could ensure the White House talking points that were passed out would not have to be reported on, but I could just be being cynical again, as is sometimes my wont.

And in addition to Mara Liasson being about the only journalist of the bunch attending who might have an objective bone or two in her body, I also wonder, with Obama meeting so often with members of the media and "off the record" and all, when he is going to meet again "on OR off the record" with, say, General Stan McChrystal who's still waiting for going on three more months now (and with Winter's nonfighting months in Afghanistan closing in) for a decision on that war and who last only had a less than half hour meeting with the Undecider-in-Chief on Air Force One while idling on the tarmac......and that didn't even include lunch, much less a pear tart for dessert.
 
Where ARE Obama's priorities? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe Conason - The GOP's Toxic Tea Party


[Joe Conason is a liberal political pundit (pol-dit) and columnist for the New York Observer and Salon.com. And if you question my labeling him a liberal, Goggle or Bing his name and look up the articles and books he's written.]

Mr. Conason recently wrote the subject article, supposedly detailing all sorts of things about the TEA Party movement and its participants, the NY-23 election, and Newt Gingrich's concerns about the toxic and damaging effect of it all on the GOP. However, something -- just something -- tells me good ole Joe ain't exactly trying to really be "helpful." So, my reply: 

First, Joe, we are not "tea-baggers," and anyone who uses that term is either ignorant or just trying to be slyly and sarcastically derisive and/or dismissive. We are TEA Partiers or TEA Party protesters. TEA is an acronym, you know, for Taxed Enough Already, so it should be used and presented that way, as an acronym. Besides, I would think, Joe, that being such a good "journalist," you would want to get your terminology straight. But then, I guess not, if you want to "appear" objective while having a liberal "agenda."

Second, TEA Partiers, 9/12ers and upset town hallers don't hate Republicans -- not real Republicans anyway. They hate RINOs.

Third, for you to join other liberal "pol-dits" in characterizing Scozzafava (Susieflavor) as a "moderate" Republican is beyond the pale. Who do you think you're fooling? She was a "liberal" Republican, if she was any kind of Republican at all. After all, an R after your name on a ballot doesn't make you a Republican.

You can be a "liberal" or a "moderate" Democrat. You can be a conservative without being a Republican. And you can be either a "moderate" or a "right-wing" Republican. But you cannot be a "liberal Republican." That's what's known as a RINO.
 
Duh! See second paragraph above, you sirry wabbit.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

RINOs Are An Endangered Species


The last few days, analyses of Tuesday's election results have been like quickly turning the dial past several stations on the radio: "NY-23 was" -- "NY-23 was not" -- "off-year elections don't mean" -- "off-year elections can be a bellwether" -- "all politics are local" -- "national implications" -- "What this means for the Republican Party" -- "What this means for Democrats" -- "NY-23 was important for both" -- "The upstate New York election was not important because" -- "Republican's sweeping victories in Virginia" -- "upset in New Jersey" -- "the right wing of the Republican Party" -- "moderate Republicans" -- "moderate, Blue Dog Democrats" -- "the conservative movement" -- "left-wing Democratic agenda" -- and blah, blah, blah.

Stop! Enough, already! You're all making my head hurt. Yes, there's a lot which can be said about Tuesday's elections, to include diametrically opposed things about the same election results, depending on who you are and how you want to spin those results. For example, the White House is sad, doesn't care, is scared, dismisses, is encouraged by, sees things this way, doesn't see things that way -- and all at once, if you believe all the "interpretations" and spin and blather.

What it all means to me, and I do hope I'm right about this, is that these off-year elections are a culmination of a long simmering disaffection with establishment Republicans in general and Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) in particular, which has been given even more impetus by the TEA Party and 9/12 grassroots movements which have been growing since last Spring's Tax Day TEA Party protests. If the nationwide TEA Party protests on April 15 and July 4, 2009, didn't give the Republican establishment and RINOs enough of a heads up, surely the massive march on Washington and protest at the Capitol building of hundreds of thousands, perhaps over a million, TEA Party and 9/12 protesters on September 12th surely should have. And if even all that didn't, then look to Virginia's and New Jersey's elections and their crushing victories for real Republican conservative candidates.

All liberals, in and out of the lamestream media and entertainment industries, and all Democrats and, so far, most of the Republican establishment, and RINOs alike, have acted like if they just ignore or make fun of the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers and frustrated town hallers long enough, the angry I-want-my-government-and-freedoms-back protesters will simply run out of steam and just go away. Well, hellooooo? Not hardly. Ain't gonna happen.

Add it up. Long-term, simmering conservative dissatisfaction with Republicans acting too much like Democrats and losing in 2006 (benchmark), then losing even bigger in 2008 (benchmark), to hundreds of thousands all across the country protesting on April 15th (benchmark), to hundreds of thousands more protesting on July 4th (benchmark), to many hundreds of thousands more protesting on September 12th (benchmark), to as recently as this Thursday when an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 more, again from all across the country, in the middle of a workweek, showed up to protest at the Capitol Building -- again -- based on a call from a single conservative, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and with only a few day's notice! I'd say "benchmark" again. That's not a sign of going, as in going away. That's a sign of growing, as in growing enough to say, "We're here to stay and will not be denied."

I'm beginning to wonder how many times and in how many different ways we have to write things large and small for the Republican establishment and RINOs to finally see the handwriting on the wall: Conservatives are fine, and real moderate Republicans are okay, but RINOs are not! RINOs are an endangered species!

Case in point: Many liberals and much of the left-wing media are describing the NY-23 district election as a "split" in the Republican Party because a "moderate" Republican candidate was forced to withdraw because some national level Republicans and Conservatives supported the Conservative candidate. Well, yes, although the national Republican establishment did support the "moderate" Republican (that is, until they didn't), some nationally known Republicans and Conservatives did support the Conservative candidate. But they did not do so against a "moderate" Republican candidate, for there was no "moderate" Republican candidate in the race.

To describe State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava as a "moderate" Republican is about as accurate, and truthful, as saying one of your very and most favorite things to do is reach, barehanded and blindfolded, into a sack to pull out a really ticked off rattlesnake.
 
Let's see, what makes Susieflavor NOT a "moderate" Republican? Well, for starters, she had run for the State Assembly several times before on the ballot line of the Working Families Party, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN, which is not exactly a moderate, much less Republican, and certainly not a conservative organization. She's pro-abortion, for same sex marriage, for Big Labor's cherished “card check,” and in favor of Obama's so-called stimulus money. (Has she even read the official GOP national platform and what Republicans are at least supposed to stand for?)
 
Then, in this race, after accepting $900,000 in Republican establishment campaign money, in addition to another individual (and, as it turned out, embarrassing) contribution of $5,000 from none other than misguided Michael Steele, the Chairman of the RNC, she sees she can't win, drops out of the race, ostensibly for "the sake of the party," but THEN, perhaps in a snit fit of sour grapes, bites the hand that fed her and endorses, not the Conservative Independent, but the Democratic candidate. Can we all say, "True colors"? Oh, and while suspending her campaign, she still remained on the ballot lines of the New York Independence Party AND the GOP. Talk about trying to hedge your bets! Shades of Arlen Specter.
 
So, no matter how much which liberals try to spin that Susieflavor was a Republican, much less a "moderate" Republican, she was not. She was at best a RINO in name but a liberal at heart. And no matter how many nominal "Republicans" think we need to "expand the tent" ever bigger and bigger, they should remember that too big a tent can become unstable -- a somewhat smaller and sturdier, more storm worthy tent is better -- and that we don't need any RINO tent-pole shakers acting like traitorous weaklings in our midst and pulling the tent down on all of us from the inside. You can be a Conservative without being a Republican, or you can be a truly moderate, centrist Republican without being a Right-winger, but you cannot be a liberal Republican. That makes you a RINO.
 
So, welcome the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers, who are probably looking for an establishment home anyway, and other Conservatives, the Independents, the Libertarians, the Blue Dog and other moderate Democrats, and the disillusioned Obama voters, and I think our tent will be big and inclusive enough, while still strong and conservative enough. Then, take the RINOs out behind the tent and just shoot them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Dithering Deceit at Dover

 
Actual quotes (nonattributed) from the news (try not to get too misty eyed):

"In his midnight mission to honor the returning war dead, President Obama did more than personally extend the nation's condolences to grieving families gathered at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware."

"He silently saluted in the morning darkness as the remains of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan were transferred from a military transport. He spent close to two hours talking in private with stricken families."

I don't want to be too cynical here, but I just can't help being at least a little bit so. First, as a military man for over 20 years, I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with presidents rendering the military salute anyway, not for the least reason that some of them don't do it very well. But then, I've come across some in the military who don't always, either. Still, I would prefer that our president, during ceremonies and such, render the civilian "salute" of placing the right hand over the heart, rather than render a military salute. The president is by constitutional requirement a civilian. The requirement that our president, albeit also our commander-in-chief, is a civilian exercising civilian control over our military is one of our basic checks and balances, so I want our president to look and act like a civilian. I guess that's part of what makes me feel more comfortable seeing only military personnel and veterans rendering the military salute. You know, people who've "been there, done that." But, alas, one of my favorite of all our presidents, Ronald Reagan, sort of started all this presidential military saluting stuff by asking his military advisor if he could return military salutes to those in the military who saluted him and was told that as the commander-in-chief he could salute whomever he wanted. Thus, presidents using the military salute almost wherever and whenever they want to was off to the races.

And here, in all fairness, I will give Obama credit. During his campaign, he didn't know the difference between a military battalion and a brigade, which is basically that a brigade may be three to four to even five times the size of a battalion and has a lot more equipment, and he may still not know much about the military. I suspect he doesn't. In fact, he may never know much more about it than he needs so that he sounds like he knows a lot by how he talks about it. But that military saluting thing, he's got that down. He's had someone instruct him and he's practiced in front of a mirror, and he renders the military salute as well as just about anybody. Well, probably except for those of us who've been on military drill teams when we were younger.

Anyway, I've digressed from my main point. I agree it was a nice gesture for Obama to go to Dover last week, but I think it was more photo op than anything else.

The last couple of weeks haven't gone too well for the campaigner-in-chief and he needed another distraction -- something other than his dithering over Afghanistan, his being embarrassed by Iran (again), his hypocritical hype about health care reform -- for the "newsers" to talk about for a while.

(I know, while I dither over Afghanistan, I'll do something to show my respect for the troops! How about some kind of photo op we can feed the media? Oh, Dover AFB? What about Dover? Oh, really? That sounds like just the thing. Set it up.)

He got permission from one of the families involved in welcoming home their dead hero at Dover AFB for the repatriation to be photographed and/or videotaped and had himself videotaped solemnly saluting the returning remains.

Of course, it was also something which liberal pundits have since repeatedly pointed out that Bush never did because he didn't want to call attention to how many flag covered coffins were coming home, despite the fact that how many casualties we had for any given day, week or month were all over TV and print media all the time.

It might just as well be said that Bush also didn't want to call attention to himself to the point of having himself photographed or videotaped all the many times he met in private with, comforted, and prayed and wept with the families of the fallen, either. But, hey, the liberal pundits don't say much about that. I guess, if it's not a photo op and it's not as much about you as it is about whomever you're "honoring," then it doesn't really count, huh?

But, once again, Obama, as much narcissist-in-chief as commander-in-chief, couldn't help making the Dover event as much about himself as the returning dead by having his solemn after-midnight and picture perfect salute recorded for the evening news. So, good for him for going but shame on him for making it as much about himself (again) as anything and for using it as a deceitful distraction during his dithering indecision about Afghanistan.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Coattails


I don't think they're very long, but we'll see.

[I've got to hurry and fire this one off, so all of you know I made my predictions well in advance of today's election trends, much less the results. Otherwise, I don't get credit for being smart enough to be right, which I do so love when it happens.]

Today, even the liberal lamestream media are watching three elections as possible bellwethers for 2010, the two gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and the District 23 race in upstate New York.

My predictions:

In the purple state of Virginia, which Obama carried in 2008 by a comfortable margin, I think the Republican candidate will not only win but will win by double digits, despite Obama having come here twice to support the Democratic candidate. In fact, I think it will be a Republican sweep across all races -- gubernatorial, attorney general and state delegates. Of course, if the Republican wins, Team Obama will blame the loss on a weak Democratic candidate, which even the president's star power could not help, who didn't run a good campaign. In fact, anticipating that outcome itself, the White House has already started distancing itself from the Democratic candidate. And also, of course, should the Democrat win, then that will be BECAUSE of Obama's star power in helping out. Team Obama likes to have its cake and eat it too, whenever possible.

In the deep blue liberal state of New Jersey, an even more telling race, I think the Republican candidate will narrowly defeat the incumbent Democrat, despite Obama having visited there three times in recent weeks in support of the Democrat. This loss, if it occurs, would be harder for Team Obama to "explain" (read: spin), but I'm sure they will try, and with their normal straight faces, too, looking right into the camera and lying. The fact is the incumbent Democrat Corsine is simply not very well liked around his state and I don't think Obama's coattails are long enough to offset that.

(Gee, I wonder how many millions in taxpayer dollars have been spent flying that big old Air Force One jumbo jet around to New Joysey and good ole Virginny so many times? Oh well, we all know by now that Obama doesn't mind spending other people's money.)

And in the upstate New York District 23 race, I think the Conservative Hoffman is poised to defeat the Democrat, even after the Republican in name only (RINO) candidate got almost a million dollars of Republican contribution money from the GOP, then dropped out of the race, and then swung her support to the Democrat! (Uh-huh, see, told ya, real birds of a feather, can't always tell a book by its cover, and all that. Talk about biting the hand that fed ya! Egg on the faces of the GOP leadership and some Republican former party stars who backed her -- big time! And, by the way, no more money from me to the GOP unless and until they show they know how to spend it better than wasting $900,000 of it on a RINO who then "turns" on the party.)

In other words, I'm predicting Democrat losses across all three races, and that should send several signals to both Republicans and Democrats.

To Republicans:

a. Stop worrying about making "the tent" so big by recruiting and supporting Democrat-lites and just get back to core conservative principles. It's nice to act so that everybody likes you, but in fact, no matter what you do, everybody isn't always going to like you. So, be who you are and you will at least be more able to count on those who do act like they like you, because they probably really do.

b. Stop "playing nice" just because the Democrats and other liberals shriek that you are the "Party of No," that you are obstructionists, or every time one of you says something they don't like or which they think they can make something out of. Be happy warriors, smile and then pin their ears back with logic and facts, two areas in which liberals are traditionally deficit. (I've long said that one main difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals feel and conservative think.) In other words, don't take any crap. Each and every time a liberal makes a false charge or claim, jump on it, challenge it and show how it's false. Don't miss any. Instead of letting them dictate that you are the "Party of No," make them into the "Party of Liars." Instead of letting them bully you into "playing nice," less you be criticized for something real or imagined, make them paranoid about being challenged on any and every thing they say and do which is the least bit questionable. Attack, attack, attack.

c. If the TEA Party and 9/12 demonstrations and protests had not already given you a big enough clue (and the NY-23 RINO candidate pick indicates at least some of you certainly missed it, or at least badly misread it), they are nationwide, genuine grassroots, CONSERVATIVE (almost Federalist) movements. They are comprised of Republicans, moderate and disaffected (Obama voter's remorse) Democrats, Independents and Libertarians, as well as many people who have never had any party affiliation before, and almost all of them are folks who've never "organized," demonstrated or protested before, either. However, they are doing so now because they are disaffected with both political parties, they are either scared or angry, or both, about where they see Obama and the Democrat Congress taking the country, they are frustrated they are not being listened to, and they are not going away any time soon. In fact, they are becoming more and more organized and growing. But I think the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers have grassroots organized so far because they had to, because no one was representing or listening to their viewpoints and concerns. And I also think many of them are "looking for a home," an already existing organization which they feel will truly represent them and do something about their issues. We don't need a third major political party in this country. That could lead to more and more "splinter" parties and then we'd be in the same boat as many European and other countries around the world in having to always form often messy and unstable "coalition" governments. But, poll after poll still show that this is a center-right nation, and if Republicans can exhibit a real return to core conservative values and can capture the passion, and allegiance, of these grassroots protesters, "the tent" will not only be big enough but they will have channeled an energy across the country which cannot -- which will not -- be denied, or defeated.

To Democrats:

a. You have already badly overreached -- and, amazingly, you continue to do so. It's almost as if there's something in your drinking water and/or you just can't help yourselves. Okay, you elected the first black president and have control of both houses of Congress, so you have some reason to be euphoric but not enough permanent power to act stupidly elitist and continue to get away with it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but then no power is permanent, either. Unless there really IS some secret and nefarious vast left-wing conspiracy, some pernicious "progressive" plan to permanently takeover the federal government and suspend future elections, you had better stop, or at least slow down, your unconstitutional overreach and arrogant abuse of authority. A day of reckoning is coming.

b. You ignore -- decry, deride and dismiss -- the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers at your own peril. The Democrat Party is the one which most often complains (sometimes accurately and sometimes falsely) about this or that faction of the electorate being "disenfranchised," usually by some wicked conservatives and/or Republicans (not always the same thing nowadays). You incessantly portray your party as the one which cares the most for the most "victim" groups, yet you hypocritically refuse to recognize that the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers are themselves feeling disenfranchised and victimized, in large part by you. They are not going away just because you pretend they are not there, or that they don't matter. In fact, that attitude by both political parties in not addressing their concerns is what got them fired up and grassroots organizing in the first place, most of them for the first time in their lives. And they are growing and becoming more and more organized every day.

c. The outcomes of today's elections, as well as what I've said about the TEA Party and 9/12 movements, should send a strong message of caution, if not to your arrogant and out-of-touch party leadership, at least to you Blue Dog, or moderate, Democrats, because 2010 is coming and you will be judged more closely than you might think by what you do, who and what you support and how you vote between now and then. Tenga cuidado, Senors, Senoras y Senoritas. Tenga cuidado.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi's Ponderous "Prescription" - Rx, Rx, Rx


The last version of health care reform that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed through, without legislators even reading it, was about 1,000 pages long. They didn't think we would read it, either, but some of us did and objected to many of its provisions in the town hall meetings in August, at which many attendees were more knowledgeable about it than the "Congressionals" holding the meetings. Plus, thousands of TEA Party protesters also insisted that Congressmen and women "Read the Bill."

But, now, with this go-round, Nanny State Nancy has learned her lesson. Pelosi's 400,000 word, 1,990 page, 19-plus pound health care reform bill is practically TWICE as big -- longer than Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" and five times longer than the Old Testament. It's "short" title is -- remember to name it nice, now, so the voters will know just by its name that we're looking out for them -- the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act (AAHCA) of 2009."

And even if they do post it on the Internet, as promised, for three days (remember when Obama promised five?) before voting on it, and you do have time to read it all, you still won't know what it says because it's full of legalese and much of it refers to and/or cites other official documents whose language is not included in the bill and to which you probably don't have access. Besides, it would take lawmakers themselves, who are used to reading Congressional legalese and who might be able to cross-reference the other documents, several days to go over it even once. And clever Nancy will probably push for it to be voted on before November 11th's Veteran's Day.

So much for "apparent" transparency.

"Oh, we don't have to really BE transparent. We just have to APPEAR to be so we have "political cover" (read: plausible deniability) and can smile and dissemble and pat our stupid little constituents on the head while keeping them quiet and happy at the same time."

But, oh, don't worry, because now while the "public option" of single payer universal health care paid for by the government, i.e., your tax dollars, is still actually in there, it's not called the "public option" anymore. Now, according to Nanny State Nancy, it's the "consumer option." Makes a BIG difference, huh?

"Hmmm, if the constituents don't like the 'public option,' let's don't actually change anything but let's just call it something else, something less irritating, something harmless sounding, even beneficial. They'll never know the difference. And once again we 'can smile and dissemble and pat our stupid little constituents on the head while keeping them quiet and happy at the same time.'"
 
Hmmm, where have I heard that last part before? Oh well, they say that short term memory is the first thing to go.....and I can't remember what the second thing is.

Oh, and there's still not any language specifically prohibiting the federal funding (your tax dollars again) of abortion, either, for those of you (and me) to whom that matters.

Of course, whatever the House passes this time around will still have to be reconciled with whatever the Senate finally passes, so we won't know for a while what the final monster is going to look like. We can only assume that it will still be a monster.
 
[Hmmm, tangential thought, how appropriate that both the House and Senate are trying to get some form of each of their "monsters" ready for reconciliation now, around Halloween time.]

Anyway, more on this subject later, as our congressional "progressives" make "progress."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Breaking News: Stimulus? - Not So Much...and Not So Fast


October 30, 2009 - POLITICO Breaking News: White House officials, under pressure from the economy's continuing job losses, plan to announce Friday that President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan "has created and saved at least 1 million jobs" since he signed it in February.

Now, in more fairness to POLITICO than they give us in many of their liberally slanted stories, they aren't saying this "breaking news" is TRUE; only that they are "breaking" the "news" that this is what the White House is going to CLAIM.

But, anyway, I just LOVE "Breaking News," don't you? It always sounds so EXCITING.

"And, next, BREAKING NEWS! But, first, a word from our sponsors."

And it's always best if seriously intoned by a male with a good baritone voice, too. You know, the kind that gives MSNBC's Chris Matthews a "tingle" up his leg, or the voice in which Keith Olbermann -- known to me as Monsieur Pomposity d' Blowhard (pronounced with a French accent) -- "intones" almost any and every ridiculous thing he says.

(Side note on Olbermann's style: I learned years ago when teaching via facilitating small group dynamics in experiential learning that when you learn to fake sincerity, you've got it made.)

But, I digress. A good "breaking news" announcement hearkens back to earlier, more Golden Days of radio and TV, with such catchphrases as Walter Winchell's "Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. America, from border to border and coast to coast and all the ships at sea," or Edward R. Murrow's "Good night.....and good luck," and even Walter Cronkite's "And that's the way it is..."

Good stuff! Of course, when it turns out to be just a big bucket of BS, then THAT'S kind of disappointing, but what the hey? It was still exciting -- at least for a few seconds or so.
 
But, enough of my trip down memory lane and back to the White House claims of jobs "created and saved." That "metric," long used by the Obama administration now, of this or that not only being "created," which can be measured, but also "saved," which cannot be measured (when's the last time -- or the first time, or any time -- you could prove a negative?), has been so discredited, by so many people, from TV commentators to economists to mathematicians to almost anyone with a dab of common sense, that I don't know why such a "smarter than anyone else" White House staff as this one is supposed to be (do I need to identify the operative word in that phrase for you? -- hint: starts with an "s" and ends with a "d") keeps trotting it out almost every time you turn around. Unless, they personally have also really bought into one of the other things they do all the time -- say something which flies in the face of all known facts, say it often and say it with a straight face. I call it "the Obama because I SAY it is so, it IS so" technique. And this "technique" has now spread like the H1N1 virus seems to be (something else the Obama adminstration seems not to have been right on top of) to the Congress, too. I just KNOW Nancy Pelosi's caught it, and probably Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid, as well. 

Well, here's the REAL "breaking news." The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board is the government watchdog group which oversees how the stimulus monies are spent. It reports that contractors who received money from Obama's failed $787 billion stimulus program "created or saved" 30,383 jobs (NOT "at least 1 million") by the beginning of October 2009.

Since the report covers only spending on infrastructure and social programs being carried out by private companies, which were awarded about $16 billion in stimulus funds, that amounts to $526,610 per job "created or saved."

That's roughly comparable to Spain's nation-wide failed experiment a couple of years ago in creating "green" jobs, which also cost about half a million dollars per job to create.....and many of them were not sustainable jobs, either, but only lasted for the life of the project which they were created to accomplish.....just like many "green" jobs currently being started up and touted in this country.

Hey, if you want to "save" my job or create a "green" one for me, don't bother. Just give me the half million outright and I'll be fine. Plus, I'll know a helluva lot better than the federal gub'ment seems to how to spend it, too.

So,

"Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. America, from border to border and coast to coast and all the ships at sea," and
 
"Good night.....and good luck,"

"And THAT'S the way it (really) is..."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Political Potpourri - Part Two


Subtitle: More some old, more some new, more some borrowed, more some blue - but also all the more for you.

1. ObamaCare alternatives?
Oh, I dunno, maybe some of the things the Republicans of the so-called "Party of No" have been proposing but which the Democrats have been ignoring, like:
Interstate insurance competition, medical savings accounts, tax free insurance or credits, tort reform, fee for service, rewarding outcomes, medical malpractice reform, prohibiting coverage denials based on preexisting conditions, guaranteeing portability, electronic prescriptions and medical records, streamlining billing codes and practices, price and quality transparency, pay-for-performance measures, one-stop primary-care “medical homes,” chronic disease management initiatives, tax equity for health insurance purchases, increased incentives for health savings accounts, or creating the ability to purchase insurance or form risk pools across state lines.
Our health care system and health insurance do need reform. Everyone agrees on that, But it's already the best in the world and just needs some tuning up, not a whole new and untested model of car. Especially when the federal government tends not to turn out Ferraris but Edsels, thank you very much.

2. Cap and Trade, Cap and Tax, Crap and Tax - what's the difference?
Once again, class: Everyone wants to ensure our kids grow up in a clean environment. Some just want to bankrupt us while doing it, and some of us would prefer a more logical approach. For the second group, The Heritage Foundation has some figures and charts that provide a helpful look at the immense costs associated with the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax plan to forcibly cap carbon. According to the new report, “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," recently released:
a. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
b. Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
c. Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses would be 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
d. The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
e. A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
f. Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.
So, Waxman-Markey's Crap and Tax Plan does sound like a PLAN, but not a very GOOD plan.

3. Moral relativity and war
Obama and many other leftist liberals are moral relativists. There is no real right or wrong for them, only effective or ineffective. Morality is relative and situational. If the ends justify the means, then do it. And, don't kid yourselves, they are absolutely ruthless in applying such Marxist principles. So, don't let them fool you with their fake morality and false arguments of maintaining our nation's moral high ground by not “torturing” terrorists, so we can once again be “respected” around the world. Besides, I would always like to be liked and respected, too. Everybody likes being popular. But the Muslim jihadists who want to kill us and destroy our way of life are never going to respect us, much less like us. They are fanatics and are therefore fanatical about achieving their goals. We, likewise, must be just as fanatical about protecting ourselves. So, given a choice between being respected by my enemies or being feared, I will pick being feared every time, thank you. In more ways than one, good terrorists are dead terrorists. That way, we don't have to Mirandize them on the battlefield, we don't have to house them with a personal prayer rug and a Koran in Gitmo, where they gain weight from the good food, and we don't have to figure out where they should go when we subsequently release them without trial, without punishment and without justice. Just kill 'em where we find 'em and bury 'em where they fall -- simple, efficient and economical. I think it was Stonewall Jackson who said something like this about war: If you do decide to go to war, unsheathe the sword and throw away the scabbard. Guess he meant war should be an all or nothing kind of thing -- either do it, or don't. And then there's Obama.....still dithering about Afghanistan...
 
4. That reminds me: Afghanistan and Pakistan
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this or not, but when Obama talks about Afghanistan and Pakistan, it's always Af-gan-i-stan but it's the New England-sounding Pah-ki-stahn. Why is that, anyway? Why isn't it either Af-gan-i-stan and Pak-i-stan or Af-ghan-i-stahn and Pah-ki-stahn? Is it because Pah-ki-stahn is more sophisticated than Af-gan-i-stan? Is it because Pah-ki-stahn is somehow "better" than Af-gan-i-stan? Just askin' - Just sayin'.
 
5. Deficit spending
At which Obama and the Congressional Democrats excel, by the way. Jay Ambrose, columnist for The Examiner, on deficit spending: "A friend recently gave me a sense of how much a trillion is with an illustration you can also find on various Internet sites. A million seconds, he said, is 12 days, while a billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds? That's 31,688 years. In other words, a trillion is a whole, whole lot, and that's something you might keep in mind when reading that the U.S. deficit for 2009 is now projected at $1.4 trillion, which is a cool trillion more than the deficit in 2008 and the most government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product - 10 percent - since World War II." Way to go, tax and spend Democrats!
 
6. Hatch Act
In a violation of federal law (the Hatch Act, passed in 1939) against government funded propaganda, Obama's official, taxpayer funded, Department of Health and Human Services website urges Americans, as a precondition to even using their official site, mind you, to send an e-mail to President Barack Obama praising his health care reform plan. Hmmm, a government website funded with taxpayer money, open to provide info to tax payers.....but with preconditions? Oh well, with what Obama's already done in abrogating over 200 years of U.S. contract law and ignoring the Constitution, what's the big deal, right?  
 
7. Obama's Little Blue Book
Until a fellow blogger recently told me, I didn't even know Obama had his own Little Blue Book of sayings and quotes, sort of like Chairman Mao Tse Tung's Little Red Book that all his Revolutionary Red Guard used to carry and quote from, as well as used to salute Mao with when their Great Leader appeared before them in public. Although why there being such an Obama book doesn't surprise me must just be because I've become so jaded and cynical. It's also interesting that it looks like someone else (a publisher) wrote (actually, edited) this book rather than Obama himself. But that, too, fits, because it's now been recently alleged that Bill Ayers wrote Obama's "Faith of My Father" rather than Obama. (I guess, like with the Nobel Prize, Obama just gets credit, or claims credit, for all kinds of things he really hasn't done himself.) It's also interesting to see on the Amazon.com webpage how many people who bought Obama's Little Blue Book ALSO bought Chairman Mao's Little Red Book AND Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" AND Rahm Emanuel's "The Plan." Uh-oh. More connecting the dots, more "linkage," huh?
 
8. Notable quotable
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), writer, editor and critic: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
Sound familiar to a lot of what we've been hearing, say, during Obama's campaign and now almost a year into his presidency, folks?
 
9. Czars - trivia question
Question: How many czars are buried in the Kremlin? Answer: Forty-seven czars are buried within the Kremlin walls.
And Obama's 36 "czars" (plus or minus) are burying the Constitution and the rest of us.
 
10. A czar becomes a -- um, uh -- czar, while the rest of us czar just bewildered
The Obama administration has produced yet another czar, putting America in hot competition against the Russian dynasty for the most czars in a single country. This czar will deal with illegal immigration and border issues via the Homeland Security Department, according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The czar, Alan Bersin, is a former Justice Department official who led cases against illegal immigrants on the Mexican border. He eventually worked as the U.S. attorney general's Southwest border representative -- a position that was cutely called "border czar." So, although Bernsin is czaready quite comfortable with his anointed title, I think his being a czar and now being a czar again is just, well, a little bizarre.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Political Potpourri


Subtitle: Some old, some new, some borrowed, some blue - but all especially just for you!

[This article's mainly opinion for entertainment, with some tongue-in-cheek and a few facts mixed in, so get a cup of coffee, or maybe a glass of wine, or whatever's your poison, and relax and take your time.]

1. Health care reform
Let me get this straight -- we're going to pass a health care reform plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it.....and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is chubby, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. Huh! Well, what could possibly go wrong?
 
2. Gandhi - or not?
Obama recently released a statement regarding Mahatma Gandhi's birthday. In the statement, Obama said, “Americans owe an enormous measure of gratitude to the Mahatma. His teachings and ideals, shared with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on his 1959 pilgrimage to India, transformed American society through our civil rights movement.” There's just one problem; Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in 1948. Oh well, we know history is not Obama's strong suit, otherwise how could he have gone overseas and declared that we are not a Christian nation but in fact are a Muslim nation? Oh, and then there's that thing about when our 57th state was accepted into the Union, too.
 
3. Stimulus?
A new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows government stimulus spending does not boost economic growth. Well, duh! I think a lot of people, except Obama, his advisors and Congressional Democrats, already knew that. We can only hope that the expense of this important study was paid for out of the Obama Stimulus Plan. At least that would be poetic justice, as well as a lot of irony.

4. Cash for Clunkers was such a success!
In the aftermath of President Obama’s Cash for Clunkers Program, US auto sales plunged 23%: 47% at GM, 44% at Chrysler, 8.9% at Ford, 16% at Toyota, 23% at Honda, and 11% at Nissan.
 
5. Who's who in Honduras?
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator John "horse face" Kerry (D-MA) blocked Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) from traveling to Honduras on a fact finding mission, while President Obama and Congressional Democrats continue to support the deposed former president, who tried to override the Honduran constitution and become president-for-life, instead of supporting the democratic government in upcoming elections. Maybe Obama sees a "model" in Honduras he would like to emulate here? Just askin' - Just sayin'.

6. You may be Taliban if:
a. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.
b. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
c. You have more wives than teeth.
d. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."
e. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
f. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.
g. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
h. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
i. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least two.
j. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

7. Notable quotable
So-called "conservative" David Brooks on Obama's pants, after meeting the president for the first time: "I remember distinctly an image of – we were sitting on his couches and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant -- and I'm thinking (a) he's going to be president and (b) he'll be a very good president." Gee, that's at least close to MSNBC's Chris Matthews' "tingle up the leg," isn't it? Who ARE these guys, and what kinds of measures of who will make a good president do they engage in? 

8. What's the hurry?
Rich Lowry, Editor, National Review, on President Obama's "Plan for Health Care Reform," said it best: "As with the stimulus package, Obama's health care plan depends on speed. More important than any given provision, more important than any principle, more important than sound legislating is the urgent imperative to Do It Now. Do it now, before anyone can grasp what exactly it is that Congress is passing. Do it now, before the overpromising and the dishonest justifications can be exposed. Do it now, before Obama's poll numbers return to Earth and make it impossible to slam through ramshackle government programs concocted on the run. Do it now, because simply growing government is more important than the practicalities of any new program."

9. A nook, a cranny, a crook?
In the difference between a nook and a cranny, a nook is a corner and a cranny is a crack. So, why wouldn't that mean that a crack in a corner would be a crook? No, I forgot, the real crook is the Congressman in the corner, making condescending cracks about his constituents.

10. A not very apologetic "apology"
Media Matters, after attributing two "racist" statements to radio host Rush Limbaugh but then not being able to substantiate them, said on October 22, 2009:
You know, in fairness to Rush, those two out of literally dozens of racist things were not necessarily accurate. We were never able to find them. We've had people call us trying to find it. We don't know where they came from. They could just be Internet apparitions. But you know, that being said, anyone who wants to know how racist he is, we're happy to give them other examples.
But then, despite saying "in fairness to Rush" (yeah, like that's what they're all about) and "those two out of literally dozens of racist things" (dozens? -- really?), they ..... um ..... failed to provide ANY of the "other examples." So, with Media Matters, it must be just like it is with the Obama Administration -- "It's so just because we SAY it's so."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thank you, Mr. President, for my Social Security handout, but...


I earned the Social Security payments which I'm currently receiving, just as I earned the military retirement which I now also draw. After all, in the first case, I paid into Social Security for almost 50 years, starting with my first regular paying job at age 15. And, in the second case, I served in the Army, going where they told me and doing what they told me, for almost 26 years.

So, I don't mind, in fact I expect, getting back from the government what it owes me for services rendered and past payments made. But I've never asked my government for any kind of handout. My dad taught me as a boy that when you need a helping hand, it's always best to look at the end of your own arm first.

One of President Obama's most recent ideas is to give seniors $250 apiece to help them cope with not getting a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) in their Social Security checks this year. Nope, I don't think that's what it's really for. COLAs are based on the annual Consumer Price Index and the Social Security trustees have assessed that the index shows no increase in costs, so there should be no COLA increase this year, either.

Remember, the cost of living this past year went down, along with the economy, not up. Giving bonuses now would defeat the purpose of the COLA, which was indexed to inflation starting in 1975 to help keep seniors' purchasing power even with inflation, not to increase their purchasing power against the inflation rate.

If Washington bypasses the trustees' COLA recommendations this year, the yearly adjustments will lose their meaning -- a meaning which is significant so that Washington can both help seniors make ends meet and restrain the growth in federal spending. In a concept which seems totally alien to Obama and the Democratic Congress, as well as some RINO Republicans, it's called "fiscal responsibility."

However, the reality, at least the political reality, in Washington right now is that many politicians want to write checks to seniors. Why? Because seniors vote in great numbers and already dislike Medicare cuts embedded in most, if not all, of the current round of so-called health care/insurance reform proposals being pushed by Team Obama and floating around Congress, as well as a lot of other things being done by "progressive" politicians, so those politicians want to "secure" those seniors' votes, don'tcha know?

Well, that seems too much like a bribe to me, and my vote can't be bought at any price and certainly not for a measly $250. So, thanks but no thanks. I just hope that when you slick politicians get ready to do this, you offer a way for those of us who don't think we deserve it, to opt out of receiving it. But you probably won't. After all, it would be contrary to everything liberals believe in about all of us in the great unwashed masses for anyone not to want "free" money, right?

Forget the fact that it's not really "free" money because it will be paid for by my taxes and yours. Forget the fact that some people actually have enough self-esteem that they don't want something for nothing, in other words, a handout. And forget the fact that some people actually have enough self-respect to resent attempts to buy them off, including trying to buy their vote.

So, if you provide a way for me to refuse accepting your Social Security handout, I will exercise it and opt out -- because I didn't earn it, because I don't need it and because I'm more than just a little tired of Washington liberals spending my tax money like it was their own on this or that scheme, even if it's one by which I may benefit.

But, since you probably will just assume everyone will be so happy to get it and therefore won't include such an opt-out provision, if you send it, I will accept it and use it the best I can, both for myself and in my small way to stimulate our economy -- by spending all of it either toward the purchase of another gun or maybe on some more ammunition for the guns I already have.

After all, I'm thinking, the way things are going, my guns, my ammo, my faith and my freedoms are the things I really don't plan to run out of any time soon, Mr. President, no matter what your plans are. Just don't tell your Attorney General buddy Eric "Americans are cowards about discussing race but we won't prosecute Black Panthers who have confessed" Holder, okay? He and your inarticulate Homeland Security Secretary Janet "acts of terrorism are just man-made disasters" Napolitano already think I'm some kind of domestic terrorist, anyway, just because I'm a veteran, was in law enforcement, am a conservative and don't like most of your "progressive" (that's spelled M-A-R-X-I-S-T) policies. No sense getting them all upset that I'm using my unearned and unrequested government handout for something as practical as buying more guns or ammo.

Oh, and if you, or he, or she should plan to send someone to my house to "check" on that, maybe you should be aware of what I used to tell hard core prisoners who threatened me about what they were going to do when they got out of the Army stockade which I commanded and which they were locked up in -- "Threaten me all you want, but there's four things you don't mess around with, so far as I'm concerned: my family, my money, my car, or my house after dark, as any of those could get you hurt and some of them will get you killed." So, do anyone you should send a favor and tell them (a) it's really preferred that they don't come at night (things get "confused" in the dark sometimes, especially me when I'm rudely awakened and angry and armed), (b) to at least come in pairs if not platoons, (c) to have a properly executed warrant or expect to be denied entry, forcibly if necessary, and (d) to bring a lunch. Because, even if they abide by all that, it's still probably going to be what we sometimes used to call it in the Army, a long and messy day.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FOX News Is Only An Arm of the Republican Party - Oh, Really?

[Subtitle: And the survey says...]

White House Communications Director Anita "I love Mao Tse Tung" Dunn says that FOX News is "an arm of the Republican Party." And White House Chief of Staff Rahm "run amok" Emanuel and top advisor David "door-to-door salesman" Axelrod say that FOX News is not really news but only opinion. Oh, and add in that Obama Press Secretary Robert "frat boy" Gibbs' best defense that FOX News is only about opinion has been that that's the White House's opinion -- huh? -- and you have a pretty full-on attack against FOX News.

However, a recent survey funded by the nonpartisan League of American Voters revealed some interesting results. These data come from a national telephone survey taken by the Global Marketing Research Center in Melbourne, Florida, during the week of October 13-16, 2009. The survey was taken from a statistically valid national sample of 800 registered voters, 36% of whom said they voted for more Democrats than Republicans, while 32% said they voted for more Republicans and 24% said they voted equally for each party.

It appears that Democratic and Independent voters clearly beg to differ with Ms. Dunn et al. The national survey shows that 46% of those who watch FOX News "just about every day" are -- guess what? -- Democrats or Independents, as are 50% of those who watch it "several times each week" or more. Now, why would that many Democrats and Independents be watching "an arm of the Republican Party" which only deals not in real news but only in opinion? The obvious answer is they wouldn't. They are apparently watching because they are getting "news" from FOX News which they feel they are not getting from other so-called "news" outlets, both TV and print.

Overall, the survey showed that 21% of all American voters watched FOX News every day and 18% watched it several times each week. So, combined, 39% watched the station several times each week or more.

• Among Democrats, 17% watched it several times each week or more

• Among Independents, 46% watched the station several times each week or more

• Among Republicans, 55% tuned in several times each week or more

The survey indicated that 11% of all American voters watched CNN "just about every day" and 20% watched several times each week or more. Combined, 31% watched CNN several times each week or more.

The totals for MSNBC were that only 10% watched just about every day and 8% watched several times each week. Combined, 18% watched MSNBC several times each week or more.

These data, compared to the recent storm of White House criticism, shows the Administration attacks on FOX News in a different perspective. Could it be that Team Obama is concerned about FOX News not because it's "an arm of the Republican Party" but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?

The frontal assault on FOX News by Dunn and the two top spokesmen for the Administration, plus Obama himself dismissively saying he's not losing much sleep over it all (maybe not, but why then do you send your minions out to do your dirty work?), reveals much less about FOX's operation than it does about just how obsessed this thin-skinned and arrogant president is with his coverage.

He wants it all, or he feels "slighted." Evidently, only absolute adoration, all the time, by everyone is sufficient. How really deeply insecure does one have to be for that to be the case? He's got (and has long had) all the liberal lamestream media in his pocket (or, since they've been behaving like his lapdogs, is that in his lap?), with FOX News having been the only major holdout.

But at least this most recent foray by the Obama attack dogs has coincidentally finally given us something Obama has promised since the campaign but has repeatedly not delivered on -- transparency. The White House attack on FOX News is so transparently just that, an unwarranted attack (as evidenced by the survey cited here), and it has been done with such heavy-handed clumsiness that it mostly shows what amateur hour at the White House from the top down really looks like. A peek behind the Wizard of Oz curtain, if you will, to reveal how small the little man hiding there really is. Thank goodness for small favors.....oh, and some transparency, finally -- albeit coincidental, accidental and unintended. Thank you, Mr. Petty President.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Long Do We Have? Maybe Five Years?

[A friend of mine sent me this information via email. It is not sourced, so I don't know who originated it. If I did, I would give them credit. But I have the idea that, whoever they are, they would want it widely shared anyway, so, in a slightly modified format, that's what I'm doing.]
 
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Republic of Athens some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
 
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
 
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
 
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations, from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years." 

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
 
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
 
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
 
3. from courage to liberty;
 
4. from liberty to abundance;
 
5. from abundance to complacency;
 
6. from complacency to apathy;
 
7. from apathy to dependence;
 
8. from dependence back into bondage"

[Smart man, that Professor Tyler -- almost Nostradamian in his "predictions" about modern day America, huh? But then, remember that Tyler was looking back at the Athenian Republic, wasn't he? So, he wasn't realy "predicting" anything in particular about the United States of today, just about the course of democratic republics (the kind we have, by the way) in general. Maybe the important lesson to be learned (or relearned) here, then, is that old axiom that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.]
 
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, also points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
 
Number of states won by Democrats: 19; Republicans: 29
 
Square miles of land won by Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
 
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
 
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phases of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
 
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to 12 - 20 million criminal invaders called illegal immigrants and they vote, then we can say good-bye to the USA as we have known it -- in fewer than five years.
 
Remember: Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive