Sphere: Related Content
Or How The Republican Party Lost Its Spine
The subtitle should be sufficient to make it clear that the actual title is not a mistake and that "immovable" was not erroneously replaced, for it is designed to draw the distinction between the determination of the democrats and the sedentary ways of the republicans.
Just as the mighty sea, comprised of soft water, in its relentless assault on the shore will eventually erode the largest and the hardest of rocks, so have the democrats worn down the republicans, making them as sand which is easily shifted by the tide. They do not have to be moved, the sea merely grinds them down slowly, steadily and deliberately.
Over the past few decades republicans have learned from their counterparts that standing on principles does not win elections and therefore does not retain positions of power. This is important because integrity is sacrificed two-fold in the process. First, republicans abandon righteousness in favor of the retention of power by any means possible. Second, they eventually wind up adopting the positions of those who were once political and ideological foes, rendering them indistinguishable to the electorate save for the letter designation after their names. (I offer John McCain as exhibit A).
The Sonia Sotomayor saga unfolding before us is an example of this. While the democrats are fervently warning republicans of a possible backlash from the "latino community" should they dare challenge her in the vetting process, many republicans are already heeding the warning before the hearings have even begun. The race card has proven to be as reliable for the democrats as the sea lashing the shore.
It is incredibly ironic that the democrats never had to consider losing their black voting base when they savaged Clarence Thomas during his confirmation process. Perhaps it had something to do with their playing to their female voting base by bringing in Anita Hill, not only female but black, as well. (You must hand it to them, they are brilliant chess masters).
(*Side note* - Adding to that particular irony, the very people wailing about the misogyny of Clarence Thomas over some "off color" remarks were the same who rabidly defended Bill Clinton for a far worse transgression.)
Democrats also resisted the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General, never worrying over alienating Latinos, and the media did not swoon over his ascension the way they have over Sotomayor's merely being nominated.
Democrats have a solid voting block in the black community and they are crafty in recruiting hispanics, albeit by drumming home the message that republicans don't care about them, despite the numerous positions offered them by the Bush 43 administration. Democrats can bash anyone they please regardless of ethnicity so long as the "bashee" is republican.
What republicans have managed to do is alienate the one true base they have had, and that is that of the conservatives, who now wander aimlessly in search of a candidate in whom they can believe.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Sphere: Related Content
No, it's not about Rush Limbaugh running for the position of Commander in Chief, sorry.All throughout his long and extremely expensive campaign for president, Barack Obama promised - and people believed - that he would run the country with complete transparency and measured pace. He vowed that bills sent to him from lawmakers would be posted online at the White House website for review and comment by the people before making a decision on whether or not to sign them. Well, just as he's done with the countries finances, you can take his previous promises and throw them out the window.
Assisted by his congressional accomplices, the president's agenda and plans are being created and implemented at dizzying speed. In the decision to spend roughly $850 billion dollars on the stimulus bill, both houses of congress rushed the bill through without having read its voluminous 1,588 pages. Obama wasted no time in signing it on the Tuesday he returned from his Presidents Day and Valentines Day holiday weekend. (He has since admitted that much of the money, particularly in the case of GM, has been wasted).
When David Souter announced his intention to retire from the Supreme Court, Obama swung into action and nominated Sonia Sotomayor in great haste. He now wants her to be confirmed in the senate by August. Perhaps he's just a product of modern society, which wants everything and wants it now; the generation of instant gratification.
Now he is urging congress to act as quickly as possible to deliver health care legislation so he can sign into law socialized medicine. Yes, I call it socialized medicine but if anyone prefers, it can also be termed universal health care, much to the chagrin of its proponents, who insist on calling it "health insurance for all". Obviously eager to emulate Canada and Europe, Obama is adamant about expediency, saying, "If we don't get it done this year, we're not going to get it done."
Using economic fear tactics, Obama is tying health care to virtually every financial malady afflicting the country. One can only speculate on what may be the rush. Perhaps it's a desire on the president's part to accomplish that which the Clinton's could not. The only thing that matters, however, is that if Obama succeeds in achieving socialized medicine it will be a disaster for the country and like Rush Limbaugh, I want Obama to fail in this regard.
He's clearly misunderstood the nature of his victory in November. Unaware of the euphoric giddiness of the electorate at the mere prospect of finally electing a black man to president as the prime motivation for his election, he instead mistakenly believes that his campaign promises won the day. To quote him: "This is our big chance to prove that the movement that you started during the campaign isn't over, we're just getting started."
"If we don't get it done this year, we're not going to get it done." That should be all the encouragement congressional Republicans need to do everything in their power to ensure it does not happen this year and pray that Obama is right in his assessment of the time frame. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The idea floated by Mike Huckabee during the campaign - although it was not his idea - was a good one. The Fair Tax would replace income-based taxes in favor of a national sales tax, thereby allowing every working American to keep what they earn and pay taxes as they consume products and services. For anyone who believes that the "rich" must pay more because they can, this is their baby, because Bill Gates will certainly pay one heck of a lot more on his new car or yacht than I will on my thirty dollar speaker system for my computer.
Amused as I have been by so-called economists who have gone out of their way to denigrate the Fair Tax, the level of incredulity has reached new heights that would be laughable were it not so terrifying. For as much as they claimed that the plan would yield not nearly enough to sustain the economy, former opponents to the idea of the Fair Tax now claim with equal fervor that it is the best revenue-producing conception they have seen. The only problem is, they don't want to replace the income tax system...they want to add to it.
Yes, the current "Axis Of Taxes" - a term I gleened from a brilliant Tea-Party-goer in Chicago - of Obama, Reid and Pelosi have determined that, having spent virtually every viable cent in the nation, that they need a new source of revenue. That, ladies and gentlemen, would be us. What's frightening is the incoherence of this new plan and the complete lack of comprehension on the part of our elected leaders where the health of our economy is concerned.
In true socialist fashion, they view the people they allegedly serve as cash cows whom they can tip in the middle of the night like so many drunk and visiting city teenagers. While the current administration claims to endeavor to spur our sputtering economy, every action thus far has had the opposite effect, and further taxation on already over-burdened people will spur an even more intense lockdown on spending, which is the ultimate engine of growth. Product demand and consumption are the stuff of jobs creation, after all.
President Obama recently declared that we are "out of money" while conveniently neglecting to mention that it was so because he had spent it all, and then some. Now claiming that more is needed to fund his grand vision of "national health care" - something that has not been clamored for by we the people - Obama laments soaring budget deficits with the sypmathetic ear of congress. As the Washington Post reports:
With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.If the plan was to finally implement the Fair Tax, I would cheer the move. Sadly, that is not the case, and I am now wondering how long it will take for this terrible triad to destroy America once and for all. Sphere: Related Content
In yet another example of the urgency Obama sees in everything he wants, his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is getting the fast track. Declaring that he wants her confirmed by August, the democrats in congress are inclined to oblige the president. How the republicans respond will prove crucial in stopping her from becoming a Supreme Court justice.
Some of the things she has said while a justice on the Second District Court of Appeals should give pause to anyone who views the constitution as sacred. Revealing the sort of ideology that Obama has actively sought out for a Justice, Sotomayor would prove an important ally and tool of the administrations desires to further erode our liberties and create an unattainable equality in society.
While it is true that she would replace a liberal Justice in David Souter, Sotomayor could prove more dangerous in her decisions. In the video below, pay particular attention not only to what she says, but also to her cavalier and dismissive tone when she utters her belief that the court "makes policy":
Legislating from the bench is completely wrong-headed and precisely what must be resisted. For one thing, it is in direct violation of the principles the Founders laid out. It should also be met with indignation by all political ideologies for the simple reason that Supreme Court Justices enjoy a lifetime tenure and therefore are not held accountable for their decisions. It is the legislative branches responsibility to make laws while the judicial branch decides whether those laws are constitutional. Every member of congress should rail against any usurpation of their duties by an ideological justice.
Sotomayor is more than a political ideologue, however, she's also driven by race and gender. Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sotomayor had this to say:
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
She also had this to say:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”Her apparent disdain for anyone white or male aside, her belief that decisions should be anything but based on the constitution should preclude her from even consideration.
Perhaps the most telling exposure of her racial views, however, stems from the case in New Haven involving white firefighters who were denied promotions after passing a test for that very purpose. According to the New York Times, Sotomayor was part of a panel that "voted to uphold New Haven’s decision to throw out a set of fire department promotion tests because no minority candidates made the top of the list. White firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion are appealing that ruling."
Obama - who recently indicated that he would prefer a Justice "with empathy" - apparently has good reason to ram his nomination through the expected republican gauntlet since he said that a justice must also know “how the world works, and how ordinary people live.” Republican lawmakers will no doubt want to know how this will help one decide the constitutionality of a law.
Since Souter has not officially retired yet, what's the rush? Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, May 23, 2009
From a grand and picturesque position in the middle of New York harbor, Lady Liberty has been both a reminder of the gratitude of the nation of France for our very existence and a welcome center for the wretched of the world seeking that which many of us have long since taken for granted; liberty. To be certain, our own negligence has been partly responsible for the weeds and other overgrowth that have sullied our beautiful landscape, but the demands of recent immigrants that their new home not merely welcome them but acquiesce to their preferences has been quite damaging, as well.
As the accompanying picture illustrates so eloquently, Lady Liberty may as well be shrunk in size and placed on a graffiti-ridden platform in some small town that has long ago surrendered its claim on Americana. So eager are our elected officials to placate the whims of new arrivals - in a misguided attempt at appearing to be accepting - that they have sacrificed our national soul and rendered us insignificant. If France demanded their statue be returned, I would fully understand.
Lest I ramble too long and give the impression that this post is about immigration, let me say clearly that it is not. It is more about the assault on free men and women by the leaders we elect through the legislative process. Since the Great Depression - when FDR usurped our constitution in most blatant fashion - the liberal agenda has been marching inexorably forward, albeit in small steps. Those steps remain measured only because of the vigilance of conservatives in high places and the ordinary American who is inclined to remain awake and alert. Without either, the pace of liberal "progress" would become lurching and bounding, causing an audible rumble in the ground.
Many who have been engaged in politics through the past decade have been aware of the likes of John Edwards declaring that there are "two Americas". Anyone who has been even peripherally conscious for the past forty years is cognizant of the constant complaints of liberals over alleged inequalities and their incessant desires to correct them. But inequities cannot be corrected by legislation; such things are inherent to Man. All men are created equal, yes, but their courses in life ensure that outcomes will be different.
I maintain that liberals - or statists - endeavor to erase the choices afforded Man in favor of the guaranteed destination decided by the State. While some would welcome the lifting of the burden of decision, it is nonetheless the stuff of tyranny and that which our Founders warned about. It is also the staple of the liberal case for compassion and levelling the playing field, for a counter to fairness is at once sneered upon as uncaring, and a difficult position to defend to the minds already seized by the statist machine.
Unless and until people begin to remember the genesis of the American experiment I fear that Liberty will suffer a much worse fate than relegation to a lesser neighborhood. Free stuff is always an enticement too difficult for the masses to refuse. Getting them to understand that it is never free is tougher still, but it must be impressed upon them before it is too late. Otherwise the greatness of the United States of America may soon be nothing more than some distant future archeologist's find in a dig of our ruins.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The president delivered a speech yesterday that was laden with complaints about the policies and practices of his predecessor, George W. Bush. I wonder when this neophyte, Barack Obama, will cease campaigning and begin leading?
In stark contrast, former vice president Dick Cheney sets the record straight. Having just completed eight years as vice president, combined with many previous years in the service of the executive branch of government, I trust Cheney's judgement over the current callow occupant of the White House.
Special thanks to Politico.com for the embeddable videos.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
In 1973, construction began on a nuclear power plant in Shoreham on Long Island. It was completed in 1984 but it never opened and operated only for test purposes, never generating any commercial electricity. The original cost was estimated at between $65 and $75 million dollars. By the time it was finished the cost, now borne by the rate-payers of Long Island, was $6 billion. Decommissioning the plant cost an additional $186 million.
It was never allowed to operate because of protests over evacuation fears. Had it opened, it was estimated to have produced over 800 megawatts of electricity. In 2005, the Long Island Power Association erected two wind turbines, each producing 50 kilowatts of electricity, or 1/8000th of what the nuclear facility would have produced.
We are making such wonderful progress backward in this country. Pretty soon we may be washing our clothes again by beating them on rocks at the riverside. Meanwhile, the U.S. is planning on giving nuclear technology to the United Arab Emirates so that the oil rich nation can meet it's electricity needs. The very people who protest loudest about nuclear power and its dangers see no problem with Iran using it but will insist that the richest nation on Earth use windmills and solar panels. Something is wrong with this picture.
If you're waiting for the rage and protests to begin when Dubai begins construction on a nuclear power plant, don't hold your breath. My money says that Sean Penn, et al, will be there to cut the ribbon on the completed project.
A few months ago I started to post videos of great acoustic guitarists just because I need a break from politics every once in a while. I consider it the sherbet to cleanse the palate of the mind.
I have learned of greats such as Antoine Dufour and Andy McKee - whom can both be viewed by searching "Simple Pleasures" on this site - but I think this video is better than anything I have seen so far. The video quality is sub par, but the audio works just fine. The first is a taste...the second is simply awesome.
Meet Justin King...
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
As our federal government gradually ceases their tip-toe approach toward totalitarianism - favoring a slow-building gallop - more and more of their ultimate agenda is being exposed, layer by layer. Apparently not content with the progress thus far in their seizure of private corporations, they are gearing up to take over the airwaves, as well, albeit through puppet means.
Calling it "financial rescue", House democrats are seeking funds from the Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, to bail out minority-owned broadcasters suffering in this faltering economy. According to The Hill:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is leading an effort to convince Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to take “decisive action” by extending credit to this sector of the broadcasting industry.What's telling is the last bit of the last line, "government’s efforts to diversify the airwaves". It would seem that the Fairness Doctrine has become too toxic for the left and that they now seek to compete with conservative radio on their own with government funding. Which means we'll be subsidizing minority-owned mouthpieces of the government. In a letter sent to the treasury department, also signed by a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus, the congressmen write, “In addition to the credit crisis, also weighing heavily on minority broadcasters is a significant decline in advertising revenues, particularly the loss of automobile advertising."
Clyburn and other senior members, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), argue that minority-owned broadcasters are sound businesses, but that the recession could undermine the government’s efforts to diversify the airwaves.
Perhaps if Obama hadn't halved the advertising budgets of the auto companies, we wouldn't need to spend more money we don't have on bailing out broadcasters. It looks more every day that this entire "crisis" in the economy is not accidental at all, but rather an elaborate and well crafted scheme to achieve the goal of socialism. Sphere: Related Content
Sphere: Related Content
Yes, it's the slogan of the New York State Lottery (or one of many the state has had over the years). It is quite fitting for such a state as New York, being one of the Bluest in the land. Pondering the true meaning of the words, however, I find myself becoming infuriated at the way the words have been commandeered in such successful fashion, making virtual slaves of the players of lottery games. The tactic is brilliant, one must admit, much as a field general can appreciate the genius of an opposing commander even as he decimates the generals troops.
Government bodies federal, state and local, have slowly and deliberately been squeezing the populace out of earnings while enjoying the support of the people being squeezed, mainly because they have used some of the money confiscated for elaborate campaigns designed to make the robbed applaud. Even if one awakes in the middle of having his pocket picked, a sense of deep awe is sure to steal over his countenance simply for the brilliance of the scheme.
What the states in particular have managed to do is to make paupers of their citizens to the point that what finances they have been permitted to retain they will gladly relinquish for the chance to strike it rich. Bernie Madoff would be proud - if he weren't so preoccupied with protecting his posterior - of such a tactic, worthy of praise from the most staunch enemy.
What I find most appalling about the phrase, though, is that it was what was in the minds of so many of our migrant relatives, those parents and grandparents - or great-grandparents, in some cases - who came to these shores with a dream of making a life of success for themselves and their families. Some came without even the dollar, relying on the dream alone, but they were determined to take advantage of the vast opportunities this country offered and many of them made it. They have since been passing down the businesses they have built or providing educations for their children that had no business to inherit.
Now, they are finding that the Land of Milk and Honey has run dry at the bottom, the elites having seized it all, only to allow it to trickle toward the hungry mouths of the people responsible for its existence in the first place and who jockey for position in the hope of quenching the thirst manufactured by the current benefactors. While I do enjoy the prospect of hitting the lottery, I have never subscribed to the notion that the funds derived from my wagers would actually help fund that which was promised by the State pushers, such as public school funding. I have seen the games grow beyond the scope of my imagination while my property taxes - the likes of which were supposed to see the most benefit - have grown at the same pace as the lottery proceeds.
Our government has forsaken us for the greed they accuse capitalists of engaging in, casting true entrepreneurs in a light most unsavory and fostering an unhealthy envy in their very own dependents geared toward deflecting their rage at the successful. Poor people, who I would categorize as the ordinary, have a misguided hatred of the people who would possibly afford them gainful employment while they gratefully clamor for the crumbs offered by their true oppressors.
Brilliant, indeed. The American people have become as dogs who adore their abusive masters simply because the master alone has the power to decide to stop kicking them. Yet they never dream of sinking their teeth into the offending foot, preferring instead to whimper in the hopes of eliciting mercy.
Meanwhile the dollar has been halved and the dream turned into a nightmare.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
For the first two hundred years of her existence, America has prospered and thrived on individual liberty and the entrepreneurial spirit of her people left to their own devices. Government interference has not been instrumental in this rise to prominence so it is quite perplexing that government now believes it must intrude for our survival.
The great experiment that was the inception of our nation was intended to break the chains of bondage that the founders endured elsewhere. They came here for emancipation from oppression and, having achieved that goal, forged a nation that has risen to world leadership in record time. Now it seems that those we elected to "serve" have become the ruling class that wants to return us to that which we originally fled; oppressive taxation.
Congress, insisting that the people cannot survive without their tender loving care, is persistently attempting to saddle us with universal health care, wantonly ignoring the wretched failure it has proved to be in the countries that have already implemented it. The idea is given added buoyancy by the fact that far too many people believe that once in place, their health care will be subsequently free. Sure, a free lunch sounds nice, too, but if you have to wait so long to receive it that you starve, the benefit is lost.
Now, congress is planning to mandate that every person have health care coverage. As Politico is reporting today:
Health care could soon go the way of the automobile, with users having no choice but to buy insurance coverage .I understand mandatory auto insurance, since driving is not a right. I do not understand the government forcing people to buy health insurance or pay for it in penalties. If someone has the wherewithal to pay their doctor only when they need to, why should they be forced to pay insurance premiums or nearly the equivalent in taxes?
Within four years, every American could be required to own health insurance or pay their way through tax penalties. The odds of such a sea change rose last week when chief Democratic and Republican Senate negotiators on a health care bill acknowledged that many on the Finance Committee considered the so-called individual mandate essential to lower insurance costs for those who already have coverage.
Read the passage from Politico again and you'll understand why. "...the Finance Committee considered the so-called individual mandate essential to lower insurance costs for those who already have coverage". There it is, the blatant plan to force people to surrender funds they've rightfully earned for the benefit of others.
As we continue to allow our representatives to suffocate us under the auspices of benevolence, we simultaneously watch our freedoms fade away, feeling good about helping our fellow man - despite Americans' already enormous capacity for charity - even as we slip into oxygen-deprived unconciousness, thanks to the federal boots on our throats. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, May 18, 2009
I know I run the risk of slipping off the edge into complete paranoia, at least in the minds of those who wish both me to believe that and to convince others that I am. But I have been writing for a few years now about the methods being employed by those who would ultimately transform America into that which it was never intended to be. While I do believe that many people involved in the intended demise of this great nation are participants innocent of malice, truly thinking that they are engaged in a noble endeavor, I also see signs all around me that they are being unknowingly manipulated by more powerful people with earnestly nefarious designs.
Watch this video, paying particular attention to the logo of the group, City Year.
The title of the video - Obama's Militaristic Youth Corp - may be a stretch of the imagination. Then again, it might not be. The photo below was snapped by an AP photographer last summer during Obama's Hawaiian vacation. The logo on his hat; City Youth.Just what is City Youth, anyway? According to their own website:
City Year was founded on the belief that young people can change the world. City Year’s vision is that one day a year of service will become an opportunity for and common expectation of every young person.
City Year’s signature program, the City Year youth service corps, unites 1,500 young people age 17-24 for a year of full-time community service, leadership development, and civic engagement. These young leaders come from diverse backgrounds and put their idealism to work by tutoring and mentoring school children, reclaiming public spaces, and organizing after-school programs, school vacation camps, and the Starfish Corps, Young Heroes, and City Heroes programs.
Four years (Obama's term) is a long time in which to indoctrinate the minds of 17-24 year-olds, and considering the president's own campaign rhetoric regarding a "civilian security force", combined with the zeal exhibited by those kids in the video, there is chilling evidence that something foul may be afoot. On the outside chance that Obama wins an additional four years, the odds against the America I grew up with surviving become a bookies dream.
Special hat tip to The ConservativeXpress Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Before anyone goes running off, shrieking as they frantically bat at the flames where their hair used to be, this is not an overtly religious post. While I do believe in God and Christ, and while I believe in the intrinsic goodness of the human heart, I fully acknowledge the inherent evil of the human mind. We are all sinners. Most of us, however, strive daily not to be. That's about as religious as I get.
My reason for writing this obviously coincides with the president's appearance at Notre Dame and the hoopla that event is creating. It's not really about Obama, though, as much as it is about the mindsets of the opposing ideologies concerning abortion. To further qualify the intent here, I will address less the definition of when life begins - as that argument has already rendered the lifeless horse bludgeoned beyond recognition - and more about the morality of death at the hands of Man.
Liberals who are nearly unanimously pro-abortion - albeit under the guise of "freedom of choice" - often ridicule Christian conservatives who routinely condemn the wanton murder of the young and innocent. These are key words, since the retort is frequently an accusation of "bad Christianity" of those who are for the death penalty. Liberals are incapable - or simply unwilling - of determining good from bad, innocent from guilty. Therefore, they equate the killing of a baby to that of a depraved criminal.
I heard an interview on the radio the other day in which the liberal questioner asked the Christian guest several times how he could call himself pro-life while supporting the death penalty, actually saying the words, "what is the difference, killing is killing". We'll skip over the fact that by simply asking the question, the interviewer therefore acknowledged that abortion is killing. The strategy was to turn the answer of the asked into a defense rather than an actual answer to the question. Obfuscation has long been the tool of the left.
It is that obfuscating that has caused the left to defend their so-called "pro-choice" stance since Roe v. Wade. (Note: Norma McCorvey, who was the "Roe" in that landmark case, now opposes abortion and was among the protesters at Notre Dame). They claim that killing a baby is a woman's "reproductive prerogative" because a fetus is not a human until it is born. Strange position to take, since it is not possible for the fetus to be anything but human. A pregnant woman's womb certainly isn't incubating a puppy.
On the other hand, the same people who advocate this heinous practice will chain themselves to iron fences and lay in the street to save the life of a convicted criminal, pompously claiming that Man does not have right to take a human life. (Actually, in related irony, many leftists would go to the same lengths to save the life of a whale as soon as they recovered from their abortions).
So here is the main reason why I personally can reconcile my pro-life, pro death-penalty stance with no qualms whatsoever. Any person who could drag a little girl or boy into the woods, rape them, torture them for hours and then stuff leaves down their throats until they suffocate and then bury them in a shallow grave or simply leave them to be plucked at by carnivores is so much less than human and deserves death at the hands of Man much more excruciating than the gentle methods we currently employ.
God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, one of which was Thou Shalt Not Kill. More frequently mentioned in the Scriptures, however, was the notion of an eye for an eye. God is just, and He was never one to allow the guilty to go unpunished. Other than Original Sin, babies are as innocent as one can be. How anyone can advocate their slaughter while protecting the guilty and still sleep at night has always been a confounding notion for me to accept.
Vice President, Joe Biden, who is all too familiar with the flavor of shoe leather, has outdone himself. Recently attending a dinner at the Gridiron Club in Washington, Biden told his dinner-mates about the secret bunker under the old U.S. Naval Observatory, which has been the residence of the Vice President since 1974.
Standing in for the President - who decided to skip the dinner - Biden told several people, including Eleanor Clift, Newsweek magazine's Washington contributing editor, about the existence of the bunker, pointing out that it was the location of then-Vice President Dick Cheney after the 9/11 attacks.
Biden is famous for the faux pas, but there must be some point at which a line is drawn between a simple "oops" and a giggle, and outright, jaw-dropping idiocy. What other secrets will Biden be privy to in the coming years, and to whom will he cavalierly utter them? If, as he has promised time and again, Obama decides to have unconditional talks with Ahmedinejad, will Biden be escorting the Iranian leader's second about town? That's a frightening prospect.
The irony here is that while Biden may have thought he was taking a jab at Cheney, he has succeeded in painting a huge target over the Naval Observatory, a place where I suspect - given his recently demonstrated lack of acumen for security - he will still hide away should that need again arise. Considering the early frailty projected by this administration, there is every reason to suspect it will.
In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what kind of backlash emerges over this lastest blunder by the Vice President. I'm sure the Secret Service is simply thrilled.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has found herself embroiled in a situation that will possibly be her undoing. Frantically trying to reverse her statements of just a few days ago, she has once again trained her guns on the Bush administration in an attempt to deflect the attacks coming at her from all directions. But this predicament is proving to be akin to Chinese handcuffs; the harder she struggles and pulls, the more tightly ensnared she becomes.
On Thursday she issue a statement and then fielded questions from reporters, who were not inclined to take on the usually expected sycophantic tone. At that press conference, she twisted and squirmed terribly, setting off the events now unfolding. Since then, perceived allies have abandoned her - understandably so - and enemies have smelled blood in the water.
She accused the CIA - now headed by former Clinton loyalist Leon Panetta - of lying about her briefings on the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EIT's). Perhaps expecting backing from a fellow democrat, Pelosi could not have been more wrong. Panetta shot back immediately: “Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values,” Panetta wrote.
Feverishly attempting to backpedal in the absence of support from the left, Pelosi has "clarified" the remarks that everyone heard clearly in the first place. She now says:
“My criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.”It is becoming increasingly evident - even to the few supporters that she has left - that the Speaker is incapable of honesty.
In her capacity as Speaker of the House, and the terrifyingly close proximity of that station to the Oval Office, there should be little resistance to her removal, even by democrats. It is simply impossible to expect that a person of her limited character would voluntarily step down. And it should not be expected of the American people to endure the torture of her tenure any longer.
Nancy Pelosi must go. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, May 15, 2009
Timing is everything, someone once famously said, and while the jury is still out on who the original utterer of those words was, the fact remains that truth is fastened to the statement just as barnacles to the hull of a ship too long at sea. Some still argue that the origins of the statement bear biblical heritage, some claim a more contemporary genesis, but it matters not in the grand scheme of things. Certain people lay claim to history in large part by the simple grace of providence, combined with the tools necessary for their time.
Edward R. Murrow is a revered figure to this day in the realm of journalism, and I make no argument to the contrary. Some - perhaps the sports statistic enthusiast - may make the case that asterisks be placed on the record books of challengers to this legend, since Murrow has often been considered the pioneer of modern journalism. To be certain, Murrow was in the right place at the right time, but he also possessed the talent and acumen to capitalize on the convergence of fortunes bestowed upon him at his time in history.
Some years later another icon of journalistic notoriety would be discovered in the incarnation of Walter Cronkite. What Murrow and Cronkite had in common was the benefit of new mediums in their respective times. Murrow had the telegraph and the telephone to speed his investigations and subsequent articles. Cronkite had both benefits as Murrow did, plus a more immediate delivery system in the form of television. I still maintain that Cronkite had the most benefit, but we'll address that later.
The U.S. Attorney's Office of Massachusetts today issued a warning to its employees. The warning was ostensibly geared toward warding off computer viruses potentially present on the site of Matt Drudge (The Drudge Report). I have a different take on the motivation of the warning, since The Drudge Report is consistently identified as a "conservative website", and Massachusetts is undeniably a liberal state.
Coming from less auspicious beginnings than either of his predecessors, Matt Drudge has managed to overcome adversity - albeit self-inflicted at times, and inherited at others - and has built an empire of information that many bloggers rely upon, myself included. Information is what drives the human spirit for without it, we'd be Cubans. (Apologies to the oppressed Cuban population).
Drudge has seized the mantel from both Murrow and Cronkite, and if it is by mere coincidence, so be it. He'd be in good company. But for a state justice department to ban access to his offerings under the guise of network security is ridiculous. I have been a frequenter of Drudge's site for years and have not had one issue. I'm sure the government of the State of Massachusetts has much better virus protection than do I, so banning Drudge is disingenuous, at best.
On Thursday (5/14/2009), embattled Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took to the press podium to defend herself against charges that she knew of enhanced interrogation techniques being used by the United States. In true child-like fashion, she made excuses that she was "mislead" and lied to, a distinction she chose, not me.
While unabashedly wailing on anyone associated with George W. Bush, she was careful to avoid the same treatment of the CIA. On top of her claims of ignorance - again, not her fault - she also repeatedly referred to her predicament as a plot by republicans. Incapable of realizing the peril she is in, it was a theme she stuck to throughout the press conference; she did nothing wrong and the entire affair was nothing more than the republicans being partisan. Sure.
Lost in the vast expanse of her rambling and disjointed speech, however, were some words that belied the collective misconception of duties, borne by most of the members of congress today. She said that she didn't openly object to the techniques because it was "not her job" to do so. So what was Madam Speaker busy doing, then?
She was not conducting business in the interests of her constituents, and she was not fiercely defending the constitution she was sworn to protect. No, she was busy going about first obtaining a majority in the House for her political party, and then concentrating her efforts - on the taxpayers dime - on getting Barack Obama elected president. As if that weren't bad enough, though, she spoke of this in her press conference with not a hint of humility nor contrition, indicating that she believes that she was performing her duties properly. Judging from the way many politicians operate these days, they must all believe that their jobs are nothing more than the constant quest to...retain their jobs.
Much the same as sharks must swim continuously or drown.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
In her quest to tarnish the Bush administration and embarrass America by exposing "enhanced interrogation techniques", Nancy Pelosi has effectively painted herself into a corner. She held a press conference today in which she managed to kick over the paint can, spilling what was left in there on her shoes. Rep Peter Hoekstra referred to the news conference as "Pelosi 5.0", saying that this was now the fifth version of events offered by the Speaker of the House.
He neglected to mention the ghastly and frightening nature of the statements by Pelosi, scary because it is difficult to comprehend someone this deranged actually two heartbeats from the Oval Office.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
After basically telling the American people that they wanted to punch us in the face, Democrat House Reps. have decided that the subtle approach may be more successful and less dangerous in achieving their ultimate goals, after all. Make no mistake; they still intend to punch us in the face, but they've opted for a more patient and circuitous route to that end, one that will deliver the twisted satisfaction they crave while avoiding the pitfalls and perils they unfortunately saw before they leaped.
Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) , The House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had teamed up on a bill designed to make drastic cuts in CO2 emissions that would have crippled our already staggering economy. They are the pilots of the ship making headway toward the deadly "cap and trade" scheme that harbors in the port of Copenhagen. (Many who have not kept up on this subject, due to understandable distractions, probably are unaware that Copenhagen is the new Kyoto.)
Understanding the problems they may face in their quest - such as opposition from the fools they serve, as well as more vociferous objections from those they do not serve - Waxman and Markey realized that to get their mission accomplished, they must follow the liberal playbook to the letter, being certain not to alarm the masses. Baby steps are back in vogue in this volatile economic climate, and these two are nothing if not masters of deception.
As My Way News is reporting, the strategy now is to scale back overly ambitious guidelines in the hope of feeding the masses slowly, hoping that small portions will offer up little flavor and smaller clues as to the bitter taste of the result that must surely follow, albeit it in the form of a pre-antacid belch. In the hopes of getting a foot in the door this year (everything suddenly seems so urgent with the democrats), Waxman and Markey agreed to scale back the draconian requirements they originally sought, and which were endorsed by the president.
Fully realizing that an inch eventually yields a mile in the realm of federal government, compromises like this offer little angst for advocates such as Waxman and Markey other than the irritating frustration of not being instantly gratified. However, since many of their ilk are nearly guaranteed lifetime tenure, time is a luxury, and plans are better laid without a ticking clock. They can wait and still eat well.
Rest assured, however; one day, they definitely will deliver that punch in the face.
I used to marvel at the conditions that would cause people to flee a country through shark infested waters on make-shift rafts, but now I am developing a keen understanding for such motivation, courtesy of the democrats in control of everything and also the Obama administration. It has become increasingly evident that the cabal currently in charge has taken its temporary electoral victory to mean that we the people are eager for the type of "care" it intends to inflict upon us. And they are preparing to dole out a heaping helping of it.
Determined to implement socialized medicine - cloaked as the more palatable "health care for all" - our government is preparing to tax everything they can possibly imagine in order to fund the program. If the "Tea Party" endorsers thought they had a just cause before, there are much more draconian measures on the horizon at which to tilt, and the "parties" will no doubt become more frequent and much larger. My hope is that they become proportionately more effective, too.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee began exploring new tax targets and reexamining some old favorites for enhanced taxation, all for the purpose of paying for the reform they envision regarding the health of the citizenry. While their motivation is ostensibly for the benefit of the commonwealth, I maintain that it is for nothing more than suffocating control of the people.
Cigarettes are being considered for yet another two dollar per pack tax, and alcohol is also in the cross hairs. Big Brother is paving the way for controlling peoples behavior. But that's not enough. The prospect of taxing company health benefits is once again rearing its ugly head in the hallowed halls of congress, possibly removing the pre-tax status of employee deductions. Additionally, congress is eyeing health savings accounts - or "flex spending" accounts - for taxation, complaining that the accounts encourage “excess consumption” of health services. Common sense would dictate that if a person's own funds - wisely set aside to cover the cost of health care - encourage "excess consumption", then the erroneous perception by people that their coverage is "free" will cause even more of a run on services.
The difference is, however, that the democrat, would-be perpetrators of Universal Health Care know that they can't ration services for people who pay or have private coverage. This is why they seek to control that aspect of our lives.
Between the government takeover of corporations, the hiring binge currently under way by the feds, and the specter of having my behavior regulated by the State, I'm beginning to feel that the president's name should be Fidel. I am not ready to live in Cuba or anything like it. When Obama succeeds in "levelling the playing field" by creating equal misery for all, the only benefit is the prospect that I will not have to run uphill toward the shore, where my raft will be waiting. Sharks seem suddenly less frightening, and my understanding of the motivation is complete.
I wonder how long it will take to drift to Australia?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
I'm sure there are many Baby Boomers such as myself who grew up on this type of music, and while it is still a great example of the creativity so sadly lacking today, the message and the messengers have created the turmoil in which we live today. However intentional that responsibility may be, it is one to be borne by them nonetheless.
Ten Years After was one of countless bands that emerged in the sixties and seventies with an anti-establishment ideology and, in retrospect one could argue, with good reason considering the turmoil of that time. But as this song so eloquently illustrates, this ideology was long on complaint and short on solutions, admittedly so by Alvin Lee. They wanted to change the world, but they didn't know what to do. Well, they did, and they still don't. But now they captain the ship and we have no idea where we're headed. Oh, and it's foggy...and GPS is not green technology. (OK, I made that last bit up).
The fact remains that a good portion of us have moved beyond the militant anti-Americanism that permeated society way back when, but the problem is that we're now relegated to the bilge as baggage with no say as to our destination. To make matters worse is the notion that whatever our numbers were at the time of our awakening to the actual splendor of America, those who still hate her have out-bred us and have molded the minds of not only their own offspring, but those of ours, as well.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of it all is the inability of the left, having been witness to the abject failure of socialism at every attempt, to recognize that it will never succeed no matter how well-intentioned they may consider themselves.
Obama's mantra was and is all about change, and his followers agree to a fault. And just like Alvin Lee, they don't know what to do. They leave it up to you. Great, the hippies are now in charge and they're waiting for Mom to clean their room.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Perhaps not yet convinced that America has been properly portrayed as having expressed sufficient contrition, President Obama will once again fire up the vehicles necessary to get the Forgive Us Our Trespasses World Tour on the road, this time travelling to Egypt to possibly deliver his latest mea culpa on our behalf.
This June, Obama will make good on his promise to address the Muslims of the world from a Muslim country, speaking from Cairo. The trip will also afford Obama the chance to visit Normandy on the anniversary of D-Day, where I suspect he will take the opportunity to apologize to the French for all the blood stains on the beach.
One must wonder why he picked Egypt instead of the newly democratic Iraq. Egyptian leader Mubarak was so incensed at the Bush administration over its insistence that Egypt democratize that he ceased his annual visits to Washington for Bush's entire second term. Yet this is the venue chosen by The Chosen One to deliver this address. Curious, I say.
Now the question remains concerning Obama's visit to the Muslim world and how he will practice presidential protocol.
To paraphrase William Shakespeare; To bow, or not to bow, that is the question.
During the Bush administration - when unemployment was very low - the media and the democrats sang the same tune over and over again. It wasn't a happy song and the beat was lugubrious. Whenever someone mentioned the high number of working Americans, liberal politicians complained about the low quality and poor wages of many of the jobs, and the media dutifully grabbed the baton and ran faster with the same message.
During the presidential campaign of 2004, John Kerry relentlessly pounded the drum of despair, claiming that newly created jobs under the Bush administration were basically an insult to the people holding them. USA Today was more than happy to do some research designed to bolster Kerry's claims, and MoveOn.org helped out, too. From a USA Today article in their "money" section, dated 6/29/2004 - in which they cite all kinds of statistics - titled Low-wage jobs rise at faster pace, they had this to say:
The higher-wage vs. lower-wage question has become a campaign issue. Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says newly created jobs are lower-paying with fewer benefits than those cut. The MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a liberal political group, recently spent more than $500,000 to run TV ads with a middle-aged man flipping burgers.On January 14th, 2009 MSNBC's Mythbusters segment discussed what they considered to be "the actual" unemployment numbers:
So I found it incredibly odd last night, watching ABC's Nightly News with Charles Gibson do a video segment on the latest jobless figures to be released. Here is a link to that video. Unfortunately, it was not embeddable, but it is a must watch, for it leads off with Gibson saying, "And when you hear the figure, 539,000 jobs lost, it obscures the fact that millions of people were hired into new jobs". He gives an example stating that 4.3 million Americans got new jobs in February. Then the video starts and we see (are you reading this, MoveOn?) middle aged people as part of the 72 who just got hired at...a burger joint. They interviewed a young man who had "just lost his construction job" and who is the new "fry guy".
The piece goes on to gush about Walmart expecting to hire tens of thousands of new workers, and also that the federal goverment has hired 62,000 new people. So I guess now that George W. Bush is not the president, flipping burgers is a noble profession once again. Is there anyone who still wants to deny the media's liberal bias? Sphere: Related Content
Friday, May 8, 2009
President Obama said that he will "retrain the unemployed". With the crumbling economy in the news, many view such a statement as strong leadership and a positive vision for America's immediate future. How many of them remember this video and Obama's desire to create a civilian security force equal to the U.S. Military?
Breitbart.com has an article about this subject today that seems to sugarcoat the implications of an American Executive administration "retraining" anyone. I offer the version that will be long forgotten by the time Americans no longer recognize their own surroundings. Hopefully, when the bewildered rotate their heads on weary necks, asking what the hell happened, this will still be available, though I sincerely doubt that it will be. If enough read and watch, however, we may still be able to preserve the history in the same fashion that ancient civilizations have; through Elders "reciting the stories".
Watch this video and commit it to memory so that your grandchildren may one day understand why they live in squalor. Since history is destined to be repeated, it stands to reason that a great civilization such as the United States will rise again.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
For a political junkie and writer such as myself, the electoral victory of Barack Obama at first seemed like an opportunity destined to rival the accidental discovery of a massive and lucrative well of crude oil by the fictional character, Jed Clampett, of The Beverly Hillbillies. Convinced that I would have a wealth of material guaranteed to keep me up late, writing, I have found myself suffocating under the immense weight of jaw-dropping revelations both from the fledgling administration itself, but also from the plethora of leftist bodies and organizations who have become brazenly emboldened by its openly radical defection from the basic principles of American values.
President Obama has - on more than one occasion - erroneously characterized his November win as a mandate by the people, claiming that it was a blessing expressly endorsing his agenda. While there is probably a sizable portion of his voters who would agree, many of those are already shaking off the euphoria they felt on the departure of George W. Bush, which was clearly part of the motivation for voters on November 4th. Those are just the voters, though...same-party members of congress have continued to embrace the ruinous ideology of Obama and the democrat party in a misguided crusade for what they perceive as justice.
The president himself, faced with the opportunity so early in his tenure to replace a key member of the judicial branch, has already tipped his hand regarding his personal beliefs in matters of justice. While he was sworn in as president, which means that he avowed to preserve the U.S. Constitution, he immediately indicated either his ignorance or contempt for that cherished document by stating that he would consider his Supreme Court nominee based on their ability to forego a sterile view of the law in favor of an interpretation based on the needs of the individual and his personal circumstances. Obama wants more "empathy" and less juris prudence.
It is ironic that the party that virtually owns the teacher's unions and the public education system, and who have instituted their "zero-tolerance" policies regarding basic common sense where students' health is concerned, is so willing to make exceptions for a depraved constituency that is as dependable as they are at the polls. Honor-roll students may face expulsion for ingesting acetaminophen without permission, and an outraged parent has little recourse in such circumstances but to accept that their child will be home alone while the parent is at work.
Conversely, adults who are convicted in a court of law for sexually abusing children are falling under the protective umbrella of the federal government and lower, usually liberal courts, are in lock-step with the administration and congress in their obvious advocation of criminals over victims and ordinary, law-abiding citizens. Pedophiles have become the recent focus of "hate-crimes" rules and have been awarded by our elected officials protected status.
In our convoluted quest for a utopian and allegedly humane environment, we are bequeathing rights on the heineous - rights that were originally intended for the truly righteous - to the point where a child molester can sue the parent of his victim for vengeance, and a homeowner who shoots an intruder is subject to prison.
Small wonder that I am ready for my straight-jacket fitting.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Like child looters in a power outage, congress and the Obama Administration have raided the treasury at will, promising full accountability. Obama personally vowed to count "every dime" of the stimulus money. He lied, telling us now that a government website dedicated to tracking the spending won't have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until spring of 2010.
What's more, Rep. Brad Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight says that the subcommittee is going to "deputize the entire American citizenry to help with the oversight of this program," meaning that they can't perform the tasks we've elected them to perform. Perhaps it's not even a question of ability but rather one of desire. The subcommittee - consisting of ten members - recently held their second meeting titled "Follow the Money Part II." Only three members bothered to attend. Maybe the seven no-shows were busy pursuing other money, like lobbyist money.
Then there is the story of Chrysler bondholders who opposed the Obama administration's plans for rescuing the car manufacturer and the swirling, persistent rumors that the administration threatened one of the bondholders. Tom Lauria, the head of Case & White, a bankruptcy law firm, was representing the firm of Perella Weinberg. Perella Weinberg was one of Chrysler's bondholders and the firm that accused the White House of threatening to unleash the White House press corps on them if they continued to oppose the Chrysler deal. Perella Weinberg has since changed its position and accepted the deal offered while never denying the threat charges. Tom Lauria continues to represent the remaining hold-out firms.
The reasons that these bondholders are fighting against the administration's Chrysler deal are intriguing, however, because they deal with the settlements of the Chrysler bankruptcy. The deal would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts. One of the basic principles of bankruptcy law is that secured creditors get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get a dime. For example, an individual filing for bankruptcy must pay off bonafide creditors before repaying Grandma for the kind assistance in getting that house. While it would seem only fair that dear, sweet granny - who probably needs the money more than Wachovia - should get her money first, that's not what the law says. Obama should know this. I maintain that he does and he just chooses his perceived notion of "fairness" to be sufficient reason to abandon the law. He'll make his own, thank you very much.
A good example of this is Obama's recent comments about Justice David Souter's planned retirement from the Supreme Court. Interrupting White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Obama had this to say about his idea of a good replacement for Souter:
"I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."(Emphasis mine.)
What he clearly means is that if the law as written in the U.S. Constitution can be perceived as somehow "unfair" to an individual, a Supreme Court Justice should have the ability to ignore the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who, in their antiquity, could not have envisioned the suffering of the downtrodden in modern and cruel America, and make a new rule favorable to that individual.
I hope the adults marked the liquor bottles before they vacated the White House because the kids are planning a big party. It may take a while to clean up the mess. Oh, and don't even bother looking for the missing jewelry. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, May 4, 2009
Democrats have long had the tendency to favor socialism, claiming to be the "party of the people" while successfully portraying the Republican party as a menagerie of greedy misers counting stacks of ill-gotten money in smokey closets as children starve and asthmatics choke. Somehow, they have managed to convince a large segment of society that Republicans and conservatives are immune to the hazards of polluted air and poisoned water and use those as weapons against the poor, and that only Democrats cared enough to change the status quo for the betterment of the people.
While traditionally using cleverly disguised rhetoric designed to project an image of benevolence and benign concern, the left is becoming progressively bolder in revealing their agenda. With an increasingly dependent and willing constituency urging them on, there seems to be a sense of consent for liberal politicians to pull the tarp off of the vehicle to socialism and give it some gas. (Of course, the preferred fuel is eco-friendly). In many cases - as evidenced by the election of Barack Obama - that consent is not merely perceived, but actual. That's frightening.
President Obama now says that Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as it once did. In an interview with New York Times Magazine, Obama had this to say:
"That means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy," he said. "I actually think that's healthy. We don't want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design."Career steering was never intended to be part of our government's role. Neither was the takeover of corporations, but that seems to be going swimmingly among the liberal segment of society with only a portion of the right voicing dismay and caution.
For an interesting comparison, let's take a look at some of the goals outlined on the Communist Party website:
Socialism starts with nationalization of the main means of production - the plants, factories, agri-business farms and everything necessary to produce what society needs. The large monopoly corporations and banks come under public ownership, that is, under the collective ownership of the entire working class and people, who have the leading role in building socialism.It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? Obama slipped on the campaign trail - most notably in his famous conversation with Joe the Plumber - about his redistributive philosophy. When those gaffes failed to slow his ascent to the White House, and now that people clamor for more free stuff, the path to socialism has been cleared of all obstructions, which means that Obama and the Democrat-controlled congress are rolling full steam ahead. It won't be long before they start rounding us up.
Socialism also means public ownership of the energy industry and all the natural resources. It eliminates forever the power of the capitalist class to exploit and oppress the majority.
Maybe there is a need to hide after all. Sphere: Related Content