Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Obama Revolution - Paid for by the People
Opinion piece by the Wall Street Journal
In the closing weeks of last year's election campaign, we wrote that Democrats had in mind the most sweeping expansion of government in decades. Liberals clucked, but it turns out even we've been outbid. With yesterday's fiscal 2010 budget proposal, President Obama is attempting not merely to expand the role of the federal government but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back.Go HERE for complete article.
The first point to understand is the sheer magnitude of federal spending built into this proposal. As the nearby chart shows, federal outlays will soar in fiscal 2009 to $4 trillion, or 27.7% of GDP, from $3 trillion or 21% of GDP in 2008, and 20% in 2007. This is higher as a share of the economy than any year since 1945, when the country was still mobilized for World War II. It is more spending by far than during the Vietnam War, or during the recessions of 1974-75 or 1981-82.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Obama is right that this spending is needed now to "jump-start" an economic recovery. Though the budget predicts that the economy will recover in 2010, spending will still be 24.1% of GDP that year, and the budget proposes that spending will remain higher than 22% for the entire next decade even as the defense budget steadily declines. All Presidential budgets predict spending will decline in the "out years," if only to give the illusion of spending restraint. Mr. Obama tries the same trick, but he is proposing so many new and expanded nondefense programs that his budgeteers can't get anywhere close even to Jimmy Carter spending levels.
These columns focus on spending, rather than deficits, because Milton Friedman taught us that spending represents the real future burden on taxpayers. Nonetheless, the 2009 budget deficit is estimated to be an eye-popping 12.7% of GDP, which once again dwarfs anything we've seen in the postwar era. The White House blueprint predicts that this will fall back down to 3.5% as soon as 2012, but this is based on assumptions about Washington that aren't going to happen.
For example, Mr. Obama's budget assumes that nearly all of the new stimulus spending will be temporary -- a fantasy. He also proposes to eliminate farm subsidies for those with annual sales of more than $500,000. This is a great idea, and long overdue. But has the President checked with Senators Kent Conrad (North Dakota) or Chuck Grassley (Iowa)? We hope we're wrong, but a White House that showed no interest in restraining Congress during the recent stimulus bacchanal isn't likely to stand athwart history to stop the agribusiness lobby.
The falling deficit also assumes the largest tax increase in U.S. history, starting in 2011 with the repeal of the Bush tax rates on incomes higher than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The White House says this will yield upwards of $1 trillion, if you choose to believe that tax rates don't affect taxpayer behavior.
In the real world, two of every three tax filers who fall into this income category are small business owners or investors, who are certainly capable of finding ways to invest that allow them to declare less taxable income. The real impact of this looming tax increase will be to cast further uncertainty over economic decisions and either slow or postpone the recovery. Ditto for the estimated $646 billion from a new cap-and-trade tax, which no one wants to call a tax but would give the political class vast new leverage over the private economy. (See here.)
Then there is Mr. Obama's plan for national health care. The White House has put a $634 billion place holder in the budget to pay for covering tens of millions of uninsured Americans with government subsidized coverage. But even advocates of this government plan say the cost will be closer to $1 trillion over 10 years, and probably much more. Meanwhile, the President is promising to reform entitlements, but his budget proposes a net increase of about $1 trillion in Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements.
The biggest illusion in this budget may be its optimistic economic forecast. The White House assumes that the economy will decline by only 1.2% this year, before growing by 3.2% next year. This assumes the recovery will begin later this year and gather steam quickly to return to normal levels of growth. By 2010 to 2013, the budget adds, the economy will be cooking by an average of 4% a year -- which is also how it conjures up magical deficit reduction.
This growth is a lovely thought, but how? The only impetus for growth in this budget comes from the government spending more money that it is taking out of the job-producing private economy. With $1 trillion of new entitlements, $1.4 trillion in new taxes, and $5 trillion in new debt, America's entrepreneurs aren't getting any help soon from Washington.
Democrats will want to rush all of this into law this year while Mr. Obama retains his honeymoon aura and they can blame the recession on George W. Bush. But Americans are only beginning to understand the magnitude of Mr. Obama's ambitions, and how much of their own income will be required to fulfill them. Republicans have an obligation to insist on a long and considerable debate on all of this, lest Americans discover in a year or two that they live in a very different country.
Grievance Reporting for Hope'N'Change Operating System
Grievance Reporting for Hope'N'Change Operating System
By Red Square
2/26/2009, 9:56 pm
To automate the growing number of grievances, reduce paperwork, and bring the grievance collecting into the 21st century, the Obama Administration has created a new agency, the U.S. Department of Grievances, linked with other agencies and taxpayers through the newly launched 2009 Hope'N'Change Operating System.
Given that the most optimistic evaluation of Obama's stimulus plan included this language, "If we do everything right, there's still a 30 percent chance we'll get it wrong," and that the government's record of "getting everything right" is shaky at best, the new department's current goal is to prepare for the impending "30%" outcome.
If you and your family find yourself among the 30-percenters, you may submit your Grievance Report, which the government will redress within the limits of its estimated efficiency rate of 70%.
COURTESY OF THE PEOPLE'S CUBE
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
That's Because You Have Always Had It
This scene from "The Aviator" has stayed with me ever since I saw the movie. There is no more perfect an example of socialism than this elitist, classist, status conscious, and might I add RUDE family. Howard Hughes tells them what he thinks of them near the end and I can tell you, I CHEERED! They are everything that is wrong with liberals.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Want Hope and Change? Buy a Goat!
Courtesy of The People's Cube
Although the mainstream media won't report it as such, Obama's approval numbers are shrinking. Which means that elsewhere, certain numbers are growing - the unreported-by-the-MSM growing numbers of Americans who are kicking themselves for not having bothered to read the small print underneath the word "change."
The small print was kind of blurry, while "change" was spelled in huge, pleasing letters on the signs they held at the rallies. The fierce urgency of now was in the air. Everybody was in such a hurry to bring about change; there was no time to ask "why" or "what kind of change." As objectivity faded into the sunset, their individual brains melted into a euphoric collective mush, swirling around the only remaining absolute - change. In the absence of other standards, the truth became a mere matter of taste, subject to change without notice. If it didn't change, it wasn't the truth.
So they won the election; now what? Three months later and almost a month into Obama's presidency, as the nation is beginning to rub its sore, swollen eyelids and finally trying to focus on reality, it looks in the mirror and, with a shock, notices a gigantic hammer and sickle tattooed on its forehead, which clearly wasn't there before.
The bubbling euphoric pulp has solidified into a depressing pile of unpaid bills and warrants. The computer has turned into a shovel and the big-screen TV into a 1930s-style radio, with the disciplined voice of Dear Leader calling for unity and sacrifice in the face of mounting economic hardships. The only thing left unchanged is the Obama t-shirt with the magic word "change" on the chest.
Being an immigrant from the former USSR - the land of equally redistributed misery - I used to cringe when Americans complained to me about the perceived misery and lack of opportunity under capitalism. I laughed at American homegrown agitators who were carping on behalf of "communities" about the lack of "economic justice." They sounded like ignorant, spoiled brats who hated their rich parents for giving them the car of the wrong color. The whiners either didn't realize how good they had it or they were being deliberately misleading. Either way their message was a fraud.
I had witnessed the stagnation and the collapse of a centralized command economy that, in the absence of the markets, was fueled by the carrot and stick of coercion and stale motivational slogans. I had lived through the hyperinflation, when I had to pay a million rubles to a guy who fixed the rusty refrigerator in my kitchen. I had seen the old country plunge into the chaos of mass unemployment and crime, while it was being robbed to the bone by crooked unelected officials who profited from the corrupt scheme to merge socialism and capitalism - a half-baked brainchild of Clinton's economists who are now advising Obama.
In other words, I had been at the end of this road and I didn't want to take it again.
Like most other immigrants in America, I had discovered a treasure trove of opportunities and was able to provide a comfortable living for my family. I wasn't rich - but every time I would get into my GM car, turn on my HP computer, or watch a DVD from Netflix, I would give thanks for the perks that only an affluent capitalist society could provide. I didn't want any change - except, perhaps, towards fewer government regulations.
But Obama managed to convince millions of Americans that they were so destitute and helpless that only a system of government rationing could save them from imminent starvation and homelessness. All of a sudden, previously self-reliant Americans found themselves in the position of neutered house pets, meowing and howling at the prospect of not getting their guaranteed three meals a day.
Opponents of capitalism will tell you that market demand is created, not by necessity, but by sneaky marketing campaigns that generate a false perception of necessity. The same experts have now implemented this perverted theory by running a multimillion-dollar, Madison-Avenue-style marketing campaign, whose goal was to sell to the generally well-off Americans the notion that they were living in misery, poverty, and hopelessness - thus creating a false perception of a need for change.
And change is materializing fast. Every time the new president opens his mouth, the market plunges. The banking crisis, which Obama used to get in power, was nothing compared to the post-election economic meltdown. On February 10 alone, after Treasury Secretary Geithner proposed a new economic rescue plan, the Dow lost 5% of its value. The unemployment is soaring while consumer confidence is sinking. Obama's aggressive marketing of perceived mass poverty became a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the shadow of the New Deal is darkening the horizon and the heavy steps of the approaching depression are sending tremors throughout the world, the appeal of Obama's plan is no longer in the eyes of the beholder.
This is where the goat comes in (in case you're still wondering about the title). Consider this old Jewish joke I heard back in Ukraine:
A man comes to the rabbi and complains about his life:
"I have almost no money, my wife is a shrew, and we live in a small apartment with seven unruly kids. It's messy, it's noisy, it's smelly, and I don't want to live."
The rabbi says, "Buy a goat."
"What? I just told you there's hardly room for nine people, and it's messy as it is!"
"Look, you came for advice, so I'm giving you advice. Buy a goat and come back in a month."
In a month the man comes back and he is even more depressed:
"It's gotten worse! The filthy goat breaks everything, and it stinks and makes more noise than my wife and seven kids! What should I do?"
The rabbi says, "Sell the goat."
A few days later the man returns to the rabbi, beaming with happiness:
"Life is wonderful! We enjoy every minute of it now that there's no goat - only the nine of us. The kids are well-behaved, the wife is agreeable - and we even have some money!"
Obama's "change" is precisely the goat that Americans bought when they lost the appreciation of how good they had it. But the perception of misery is not set in stone; this self-inflicted disaster may as well serve as a remedy - an unpleasant but necessary shock therapy helping the misguided voters come to their senses and begin to appreciate what they had lost. And once they get rid of the socialist goat, they will hopefully regain confidence in their own system and continue to enjoy liberty and prosperity as they always did - with the head held high and without the silliness of feeling guilty about it.
The trick is not to let the goat grow on you. Don't settle for socialism. Capitalism may be a self-regulating system, but it won't be able to heal itself if the socialization goes too far. Then it would be a whole different goat story.
They Put the Con In Congress
Courtesy of The People's Cube
The Party™ has successfully expanded their power for decades to come. With this stimulus plan not only are we ensnaring generations of future Americans in ever more crushing taxation and debt, we have ensured that millions more people and even businesses are dependent on us for their wellbeing. The result will be more Democratic Party voters, for only a fool would bite the hand that feeds them.
The Rethuglicans only offer tired worn-out principles of a bygone era with silly concepts like rugged individualism, freedom, and liberty.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Ronald Reagan 40th president of US (1911 - 2004)
Well, Boo Hoo...
Yes, comrades, it is a glorious new day in these United Socialist States of America. Rejoice
Enforcing Illegal Immigration Laws Opens up Jobs for Unemployed Americans
Who would have believed that!
From the website Californians for Population Stabilization:
From the website Californians for Population Stabilization:
The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW), of which CAPS is a member, has launched another national TV blitz. The ads emphasize the fact that worksite immigration enforcement is opening up jobs for Americans, improving workplace safety and raising wages.
Diana Hull, President of CAPS, commented, “One has to wonder about Congressman Gutierrez’ motives. Eleven million Americans are out of work and millions of their homes are being foreclosed. Americans need these jobs yet Congressman Gutierrez wants to make sure illegal workers can continue taking American jobs. Whose interest is he representing anyway?”
As a result of ICE enforcement around the country, Americans have been taking the jobs that used to be done by illegal workers. In Tarheel, North Carolina, enforcement has resulted in probable unionization and a huge victory for the American worker. In Mississippi, out of work Americans lined up for jobs that used to be done by illegal workers. Hull commented, “Worksite enforcement works. Why would we want to stop opening up jobs for Americans when 11 million of our neighbors and friends need those jobs?”
Hull also pointed out that the Senate removed E-Verify from the recently signed stimulus package. E-Verify would have helped ensure Americans get the jobs fueled by the Stimulus package. E-Verify was included in the original Stimulus Bill passed in the House but was removed in the Senate and never made it back into the bill in the conference committee. Hull commented, “The stimulus is supposed to stimulate job growth for American workers. Without E-Verify, our tax dollars could be stimulating jobs for illegal workers who send their money out of the country. That won’t help American workers pay their mortgages.”
Hull is optimistic about the President continuing worksite enforcement actions, “I hope President Obama will decline the suggestions of Congressman Gutierrez,” stated Hull. “I know the President is trying to create more jobs for Americans, not give them away.”
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Ambassdor Samir Sumaida'ie Lambasts Code Pink
Personally, I cannot stand these horrible, wretched women. This was from December, when the Ambassador was visiting DC and shortly after the shoe throwing incident in Iraq. I was cheering the whole time the Ambassador was speaking. But the pinko tools never know shame. Their signs remained held high during the entire exchange. Send them to the Middle East. Let them try something like that there.
Mr. Muntader al-Zaidi is very lucky that it was Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki and not Saddam Hussein. Because, had it been Mr. Saddam Hussein you would be carrying a different plaque by now. Number 2, in our country, I know that people have told you that showing shoes at someone is an insult. But, it is a bigger insult to the host; in our culture anyone who insults a guest is insulting the host. So in our culture we believe that what Mr al-Zeidi did was reprehensible.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
10th Mountain Soldiers Recovered
I got this in my e-mail and it has weighed on my mind all day. I was looking at the faces of these fine young men and I was thinking that I have no words to express the gratitude I feel that men and women like these are keeping me safe so I can sit here and type these words. I am so very grateful to them all and so very sad at their passing. Thank you, fine young soldiers. Thank you.
BAGHDAD, July 16, 2008 -- On June 4, 2007, the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq declared two captured U.S. Soldiers dead and buried. The message mocked the United States in saying the bodies would not be returned nor found.
Fourteen months of relentless efforts by U.S. and Coalition forces proved the terrorists' taunts false.
Coalition Special Operations Forces accompanied by Soldiers from the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, recovered the remains and equipment of Staff Sgt. Alex Jimenez, of Lawrence, Mass., and Spc. Byron Fouty, of Waterford, Mich., west of Jurf As Sukhr on July 8, 2008, led to the site by one of the men who buried them.
Jimenez, Fouty, and Pfc. Joseph Anzack, of Torrance, Calif., all Soldiers from the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, were captured and four other Soldiers and their Iraqi interpreter killed during an attack May 12, 2007, outside Yousifiyah, Iraq - an area within the infamous "triangle of death."
The body of Pfc. Anzack was later recovered from the Euphrates River downstream from the attack on May 23, 2007.
The search for Jimenez and Fouty continued over the following weeks with over 4,000 Soldiers conducting combat operations in support of their recovery. They disseminated posters, talked to the local population and engaged community leaders for help - and absorbed casualties among their own in the determined search that followed.
"The US Army Soldier's creed states: 'I will never leave a fallen comrade,' expressing the belief that there is a bond between professional warriors that can never be broken - not even by capture or death," said Maj. Gen. Michael Oates, 10th Mountain Division and current Multi-National Division - Center commander.
In June 2007, al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack in written postings and a propaganda video posted on extremist websites. Later that month, Coalition forces discovering some personal effects of Jimenez and Fouty, including their identification cards during a raid of a suspected AQI safe house near Samarra, Iraq.
In October 2007, Coalition forces recovered weapons issued to Jimenez, Fouty and Anzack in Fetuah, Iraq. The following month, video evidence depicting weapons and equipment taken from the captured Soldiers was discovered in Iskandariyah, Iraq. Each new finding gave intelligence experts more clues and more suspects, some of whom provided key names and information.
In November 2007, Task Force Marne, then in charge of Multi-National Division - Center, formed a Missing & Captured operations team to maintain continuity in the search efforts as the 2nd BCT, 10th Mtn. Div., prepared to return home.
The MISCAP cell fused the intelligence efforts of several coordinated sources. This included the collaboration of key unit brigades on the ground, the Personnel Recovery Division at Multi-National Force - Iraq, and analysts from multiple agencies, to include: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Intelligence & Security Command, National Security Agency and the U.S. Central Command. The cell also took charge of conducting analysis and targeting suspected individuals involved in the attack.
Talking to the population and working with Iraqi counterparts assisted Coalition forces in gathering material that would lead them to some of the insurgents believed to be directly linked to the ambush and capture.
"We had a number of people detained we know were involved and we had a number of other leads that point to other people we believe were involved," said Lt. Col. Michael Ryan, of Oklahoma City, the staff judge advocate at the MND-C Headquarters.
Throughout the course of a year's search, over a dozen key people with information were detained or captured. Others with known criminal and terrorist ties chose to fight and were killed by Coalition forces intent on capturing them to gain more information.
During the winter of 2007 and early 2008, Coalition forces detained and questioned sources who eventually led them to three people alleged to know the Soldiers' exact location.
Throughout the month of June, the 4th BCT and the 3rd BCT, 101st Airborne Division, continued to engage Iraqi citizens for information of AQI in their communities, gaining valuable information on terrorist activities and movements in the area.
On July 1, Coalition SOF captured a reported leader of multiple AQI cells south of Baghdad. The captured leader, linked to facilitating suicide bombers for attacks in Baghdad, was believed to know the missing Soldiers' whereabouts. Initially telling Coalition forces he knew where Jimenez and Fouty were buried, it was not until July 3 that the AQI leader disclosed the location.
On July 8, the AQI leader led Coalition SOF and Soldiers from the 4th BCT to the site where the Soldiers secured the area. Once on site, however, the AQI leader could not determine the exact location, but led Coalition SOF to another suspect nearby he claimed had information about the burial site.
Coalition forces located and detained the suspect who, after identifying the original burial site, led them to another nearby site where he claimed he had moved the remains. Upon searching the area, Coalition forces discovered the remains and various equipment and clothing of Staff Sgt. Jimenez and Spc. Fouty.
"This was definitely a joint effort of many units within and outside of Multi-National Division - Center that led to the recovery of these two warriors," said Lt. Col. Richard Ruffcorn, officer in charge of the Missing & Captured cell at the MND-C Headquarters.
On July 9, a Criminal Investigation Division forensics team and an investigative officer from MND-C Headquarters traveled to the burial site, located nearly 20 kilometers south of the May 12 ambush site, to survey the area and collect evidence. Later that day, the remains of Staff Sgt. Jimenez and Spc. Fouty were transported by mortuary affairs personnel to Camp Victory, south of Baghdad and prepared for transportation to the United States. At 10:51p.m., following a ramp ceremony honoring the fallen Soldiers, the airplane departed with Staff Sgt. Jimenez and Spc. Fouty aboard, headed for Dover Air Force Base.
Arriving in Dover, Del., July 10, the remains were transported to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology where a medical examiner analyzed and confirmed they were Jimenez and Fouty. Shortly after positive identification was confirmed, the families of Jimenez and Fouty were informed by uniformed officers of the U.S. Army.
"I would have to say I consider it an honor to have been involved in the recovery of these two Soldiers," Ruffcorn said.
The quest to find Staff Sgt. Jimenez and Spc. Fouty was a study in commitment and teamwork, with every service, unit, and individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and civilian who has been involved in their recovery playing a part in its success. Yet their mission is not complete.
"We look forward to working together with the Government of Iraq to bring the criminals and terrorists responsible for the ambush, kidnapping and death of the these Soldiers to justice," Ryan said.
Staff Sgt. Alex Jimenez and Spc. Byron Fouty were posthumously promoted from sergeant and private first class respectively. Staff Sgt. Jimenez's date of rank is December 1, 2007; Spc. Fouty's date of rank is March 8, 2008.
Monday, February 16, 2009
A Satirical Look at Conservativism
This person obviously thought this was very clever. Unfortunately, they don't even have a clue that satire usually has an underlying thread of truth somewhere. This was propaganda, not satire. There is a difference, but maybe one has to be a Republican to know that.
The Terri Schiavo Story
By order of the government, a healthy young woman was starved to death until she died.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
How Democracies Become Tyrannies
Great Post by Ed Kaitz, h/t American Thinker
Back in 1959 the philosopher Eric Hoffer had this to say about Americans and America:
For those who want to be left alone to realize their capacities and talents this is an ideal country.
That was then. This is now. Flash forward fifty years to the election of Barack Obama and a hard left leaning Democrat Congress. What Americans want today, apparently, is a government that has no intention of leaving any of us alone.
How could Hoffer have been so wrong about America? Why did America change so quickly? Can a free people willingly choose servitude? Is it possible for democracies to become tyrannies? How?
The answers to these questions were famously addressed in a few pages tucked within the greatest masterpiece of the classical world: Plato's Republic. On the surface, and to most reviewers of Plato's writings, the Republic is a dialogue on justice and on what constitutes the just society. But to careful readers the deeper theme of the Republic is the nature of education and the relationship between education and the survival of the state. In fact, the Republic is essentially the story of how a man (Socrates) condemned to death for "corrupting" the youth of Athens gives to posterity the most precious gift of all: the love of wisdom.
In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state. During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: "The state is man writ large."
Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime's "defining principle" will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.
For Socrates, democracy's "insatiable desire for freedom and neglect of other things" end up putting it "in need of a dictatorship." The short version of his theory is that the combination of freedom and poor education in a democracy render the citizens incapable of mastering their impulses and deferring gratification. The reckless pursuit of freedom leads the citizens to raze moral barriers, deny traditional authority, and abandon established methods of education. Eventually, this uninhibited quest for personal freedom forces the public to welcome the tyrant. Says Socrates: "Extreme freedom can't be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city."
Click link above for remainder of article.
KILLING BABIES - GOOD. KILLING WOLVES - BAD. ASHLEY JUDD, HOLLYWOOD NITWIT.
Judd-stice Is Blind |
CLICK IMAGE TO READ. HAVE A BOTTLE OF ROLAIDS HANDY. AND MAYBE A HAMMER. I'M JUST SAYIN'.
How are You Feeling About the Economy, Stimulus Bill and President B. Hussein?
This pretty much sums it up for me.
Brian Coyne Maloney of Brain Terminal has made yet another great video, this one about Charles Rangel and the less than conscious people who vote for him. Brian says:
Congressman Charles Rangel has been in the news quite a bit lately.
He’s having trouble keeping up with his taxes, despite being the chairman of the committee responsible for writing the nation’s tax laws.
Rangel, who’s been in Congress since 1971, has remained remarkably popular with his constituents for what in politics is an impossibly long time.
I wondered how his various scandals were playing among the folks who’d be voting for him in the next election. So, on a cold winter day, I went up to 125th Street in the heart of Harlem, and to my surprise, I discovered that the seeds of an urban tax revolt had already been sown.
Check out his blog for more great posts. If you can spare a dime, donate to him.
Lance Armstrong in Row With Irish Reporter
This occurred on February 13, 2009, before the race in California. Irish reporter, Paul Kimmage, said some pretty harsh things about Lance in an article. Lance gave him a proper dressing down, but he did it so well, calm, collected. Paul says at the end that Lance made concern for "doping disappear." I really doubt Lance has that kind of power.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
The Tolerance of Islam
Muslims all over the world have decried Geert Wilders' short film "Fitna" as inciting hatred and prejudice against Islam. This is how they respond. This is what tolerance looks like.
Geert has a new website. Please visit here
Another Day that Will Live in Infamy
The Dirty Rotten Bastages!!! My hope is that this will be a call to real conservatives to cull out RINOS like these (there are more!). This just can't happen again. Thank you Ms. Snowe, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Spectacle. Thank you for selling America down the river. Thank you for shackling my children's, children's, children with unbelievable debt, all for nothing. Nearly every econonomist in the nation and everyone on Wall Street says this is a bad idea. But Obamamessieh knows better. Wink wink....ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Obama's Enablers in Chief
Three Republicans voted for stimulus.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
WALL STREET JOURNAL (READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE)
"I have worked with my colleagues -- Republicans and Democrats -- to cut wasteful spending in this bill and focus taxpayer dollars where they will do the most good." -- Sen. Kent Conrad, one extremely relieved man.
"[The stimulus is] much more focused on jobs after Senator Susan Collins of Maine, I and a bipartisan group of senators cut $110 billion of non-stimulative spending . . ." -- Sen. Bill Nelson, if possible, even more extremely relieved.
The cause of their relief? Sens. Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, of course. According to the Beltway media, the three GOP amigos -- whose votes this week allowed Senate Democrats to pass an $838 billion "stimulus" -- are now the most "powerful" people in Washington. Bills succeed or spontaneously combust at their very say-so. Want sunshine tomorrow? Ask the senators from Maine. They'll make it happen.
Then again, only in Washington could the word "powerful" be applied to three members who voted for a bill that they always intended to vote for, no matter how big, bad or ugly. Their real accomplishment this week wasn't "fixing" the stimulus; they didn't. Their real role was providing cover for moderate Democrats (smile, Messrs. Conrad and Nelson) who might have been reluctant to vote for an unpopular spending blowout, were it not for GOP back-up.
A week ago the Capitol's phone lines were jammed with Americans -- half of them from North Dakota -- livid about "stimulus" waste. A number of Senate Democrats, several up for re-election in red-state America, were sweating dollar signs. Then Ms. Collins convened her group, which took very seriously its job of fiddling around the bill's edges. By the time they emerged, Conrad, Nelson & Co. were boasting that the final Senate product was a "bipartisan compromise" that demonstrated their continued commitment to "fiscal responsibility." Only in Washington can adding $20 billion to an $817 billion House bill earn you praise as a deficit hawk.
Barack Obama meanwhile can thank them for providing cover for the fiction that the bill, post-"compromise," had somehow been shorn of its worst waste. Going into the Collins huddle, the "stimulus" contained $2 billion for a power plant in Illinois, $75 million for the Smithsonian, $300 million for government cars, and dozens of other embarrassing projects. Coming out of the Senate it contained $2 billion for a power plant in Illinois, $75 million for the Smithsonian, $300 million for government cars, dozens of other embarrassing projects, an additional $420 million for Maine's Medicaid program, and an additional $6.5 billion for the National Institutes for Health (courtesy of Mr. Specter). There's good reason why the Senate's true fiscal disciplinarians -- say, Tom Coburn or Jim DeMint -- didn't get down with the "compromise" party.
And then there's the self-cover. Ms. Snowe had to be worried that someone might remember that she's spent 13.99 of her 14 years in the Senate publicly agonizing, usually in view of a camera, about the "deficit." Or that as recently as, oh, January, she was fervently devoted to "paygo" -- which she waived in deference to $839 billion in deficit spending. She might have even worried her enthusiasm for this bill might finally, after all these years, highlight that her fiscal responsibility only surfaces when it is time to oppose a tax cut, and that she's never met spending she didn't love.
But no worries! Who has time to remember all those obvious facts? If there's one thing the Maine duo love and understand it's the press, which has a habit of forgetting everything in the face of a hearty, happy compromise. These days, the most dangerous place for Chuck Schumer in Washington is between Susan Collins and a camera.
Still unclear is how all this cover will change the final stimulus votes. Now that Sens. Snowe, Collins and Specter have provided their "bipartisan" imprimatur, some House GOP and Democratic Blue Dog critics may well feel free to join in.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Most Important Film You Will Probably Never See
The British government's cowardly refusal to allow Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders to enter Britain yesterday may be the death knell for an already sinking nation under Islam. Geert is an outspoken critic of Islam and the growing and frequently disruptive Muslim presence in Europe.
He's also compared the Koran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and produced a controversial film about radical Islam called "Fitna" (see above) that, predictably enraged Muslims worldwide (it doesn't take much). By today's ridiculously politically correct standards, Wilders' statements are seen as the height of controversy and a threat to the state (he's even been charged with "inciting racial hatred" in the Netherlands).
The Speech Geert Wilders Would Have Given in Britain
“Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.
This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.
The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.
In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.
What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.
Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.
Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.
There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.
Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.
We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.
Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.
For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.
Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.
But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.
You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?
Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.
I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.
The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.
Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?
We have to defend freedom of speech.
For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.
What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?
The choice is ours.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.
Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.
Thank you very much.”
Geert Wilders MP
Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
The Netherlands
Helen Thomas and the Decline of the Media
Helen Thomas: Symbol of Media Decline
AIM Report | By Wes Vernon | February 13, 2009
Both during her long stint at UPI and her subsequent time with Hearst, Thomas gained a national reputation for posing questions at White House briefings that resembled partisan political speeches more than efforts to obtain facts.
(Editor’s Note: On November 12, 2008. Editor & Publisher reported that “After surviving some health issues, Helen Thomas, the most veteran White House scribe, is ready to take on Barack Obama! She’s returned to her White House beat and is already complaining about him naming too many Clintonistas. She says she will not give Obama a honeymoon—oh, maybe, one day. Thomas reveals that she did vote for Obama and never thought there would be a black president.”
Following this report, Thomas gave an interview to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation morning TV interview show, “Sun Day,” and declared, “I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ‘till I die. What else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?”
In a January 19, 2009, column, Thomas declared that “… Obama has a lot to prove. Let’s hope he doesn’t blow it.”)
If one were to draw a cartoon-like character who embodies all the missteps and bias of the Washington media, he would have to invent Helen Thomas. She would be a good female/print counterpart to “Mr. Noseworthy,” manager of TV station WFDR in the Mallard Fillmore comic strip.
“Saturday Night Live” or the former Fox News “Half Hour News Hour” satire could not produce a fictional character who more tellingly parodies the liberal media than this grand dame of the liberalism that pervades the mainstream media.
The gold standard for reportorial behavior is supposed to be “objectivity” and the appearance of impartiality. That does not apply to opinion journalists who are often ideologically oriented and whose very livelihood depends on a readership/listenership/viewership that is attracted to them precisely because of their punditry.
Advocacy Journalist
We are talking about straight reporters who supposedly arrive at the table with no intent to weave an agenda into the story. It can be argued, as this writer has, that anyone who covers the bitterest gut-wrenching political battles of our time and claims to have no opinions is likely to be judged either a liar or a moron. The point is—Does he/she try to play it down the middle in a way that is credible to a public that simply wants unvarnished facts? Human nature being what it is, your world outlook can affect your view of what is or what is not “news.” The question lies in an ability to report the news with some credibility.
For 57 years, Helen Thomas reported for United Press International and in her later years she was its Washington Bureau Chief. Only in more recent months has she written a clearly-labeled opinion column for the Hearst newspapers.
Both during her long stint at UPI and her subsequent time with Hearst, Thomas gained a national reputation for posing questions at White House briefings that resembled partisan political speeches more than efforts to obtain facts.
She has claimed that none of this preaching showed up in her copy at UPI. Part of the reason—if that is true—may be that many of her longer stories from the White House went through the rewrite desk before popping up on the wire.
More to the point, even if the copy were cleansed of bias before reaching the public, the same public has had access to the live TV broadcasts carrying the White House briefings that include Thomas’s rant-filled “questions.” That makes her claim of “clean copy” a distinction without a difference.
Very few newspapers actually carry Thomas’s Hearst column. But it serves as a fig leaf for her press pass to attend the White House briefings, where she can lecture the nation via C-SPAN or other TV outlets on her personal views. No doubt Thomas honestly believes that what she says from her perch is more important than anything a mere president has to say.
Example #1 - Making false accusations
Helen Thomas: “Mr. President, why do you refuse to respect the walls between church and state, and you know that the mixing of religion and government for centuries has led to slaughter. I mean that has stood in good stead by having this separation: Why do you break it down?”
That is one way of saying “Guilty as charged. What say you about it?”—the old “When did you stop beating your wife?” approach that goes beyond the normal “adversarial” role of the journalist.
It is one thing to quote critics who have taken President Bush to task for his efforts to assist local faith-based groups in their capacity to provide federal social services. Most Americans would have no problem with the Bush program. But the ACLU and others do. And asking the President to comment on their criticisms is legitimate.
However, to adopt the critics’ position as the reporter’s own view and demanding the President respond as if he were being questioned by a prosecutor rather than a reporter crosses the line and undermines the credibility of not just that particular scribe but of the entire profession in the eyes of the public.
Here’s how the rest of the question and answer period went:
President Bush: “Helen, I strongly respect the separation of church and state.”
Thomas: “Well, you wouldn’t have the religious office in the White House if you did.”
Bush: “I didn’t get to finish my answer, with all due respect. I don’t believe it violates the line between the separation of church and state, and I believe it’s going to make America a better place.”
Thomas: “You are a secular official, and not a missionary.”
Most of the above dialogue was caught on film and shown on the HBO pro-Thomas documentary “Thank you Mr. President” on August 19.
Produced by Rory Kennedy—a niece of the late President John F. Kennedy—the production’s one-sided thrust was too much even for the Washington Post liberal TV critic Tom Shales.
Under the heading “A Story with a Few Holes,” Shales noted that “Mr. President’s” short 38-minute length left it suspect of having been edited so as to delete “a blemish or two” on Thomas’s career, “the documentary equivalent of cosmetic surgery.”
Example #2 - The Hezbollah “point of view”
Thomas’s affinity for Israel’s enemies—as expressed in her “questions”—has been so pronounced that at one time, the late Tony Snow, when he was press secretary, was prompted to thank her for “the Hezbollah point of view.”
That was not a flip comment. News reports have cited FBI findings that the Hezbollah terrorist organization has sleeper cells in the United States waiting to be galvanized into an action against the U.S. For the White House to accuse a reporter of (however unwittingly) mouthing Hezbollah propaganda is no small matter. And it goes beyond defending Israel.
This is a matter that deserved more than the passing attention it received in the mostly glowing HBO salute.
Thomas’s pro-Arab “questions”/speeches on the Arab-Israeli wars have been typified by the following to then-spokesman Ari Fleischer in 2002: “Ari, does the president think that the Palestinians have a right to resist 35 years of brutal military occupation and suppression?”
Example #3 - Abuse of journalistic privilege
Attempts to gloss over the Thomas lectures with an air of—Oh, well, that’s just Helen—came to a screeching halt when the “dean” of White House correspondents accused American troops in Iraq of targeting civilians. Press spokeswoman Dana Perino apparently decided the ultimate limit had been breached.
Perino: “Helen, I really find it unfortunate that you use your front-row position bestowed upon you by your colleagues to make such a statement. It is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room [and] to suggest that we—as the United States—are killing the innocent is just absurd and very offensive.”
Thomas: “How do you know how many we have?”
Perino: “We are going after the enemy, Helen. To the extent that any innocent Iraqi may have been killed, we have expressed regret for it.”
Thomas: “Well, regret doesn’t bring back a life.”
Note: Nor have any lives been restored by regret for the deaths of nearly 3,000 American civilians on 9/11 in part because of the security policies of President Clinton’s administration. And yet…
Example #4 - Excusing Democrats
The so-called “watchdog” of “the people’s right to know” gives a pass to the impeached Bill Clinton, whose antics gave him the uncharitable moniker “Slick Willie.”
When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, she says, “it was downhill from then on. Of course, everybody started digging, digging, digging...a nightmare for the Clintons, I’m sure. For reporters, it was a story you couldn’t avoid, even though you would have liked to have.”
There it is—on the record. The “dean” of White House reporters admits she “would have liked to have” looked the other way if only some of her colleagues had not been at least mildly curious about issues that arguably dwarfed Mr. Clinton’s dalliance with a White House intern.
Some real fodder for “digging, digging, digging” could have led a curious press corps to put some finality to:
Allegations of fund-raising practices that badly compromised our position vis-Ã -vis the Communist Chinese.
Credible charges of rape—a real first for a White House occupant, with NBC’s play-down of a real first rate investigative report by Lisa Meyers, who by the way was supported by AIM’s intrepid founder, Reed Irvine.
Bill Clinton’s rejection of an offer from Sudan to hand the U.S. Osama bin Laden on a platter
The unresolved questions surrounding the death of Vince Foster, another instance where Reed Irvine’s “digging, digging, digging” uncovered suspicious circumstances of little interest to a remarkably uncurious Washington wolf-pack.
The administration’s persecution of Billy Dale, White House Travel Office Director for three decades, in order to make way for Clinton cronies. Dale was falsely accused of embezzlement (for which he was found not guilty in a court of law). The ruined and disrupted lives of Dale and six other employees were of little concern to the Clintons.
As an opener to that segment of the HBO telecast, the producers chose a film clip of President Clinton saying, “Well, let me first of all say once again I never ask anybody to do anything but tell the truth.”
No sense of irony was noted at this comment by a law-license losing perjurer—just the star reporter wailing about how the poor Clintons were tyrannized by “digging, digging, digging.”
Introducing then ex-President Clinton in 2001 to an audience of the Greater Washington Society of Association executives, Helen Thomas declared, “This lecture series is about the human spirit. To me and millions of others, President Clinton has always personified that. He is the man from Hope. We miss him. Thank you, Mr. President.”
Most journalists working for organizations trying to present the appearance of “objective reportage” would be called to account for such a glowing tribute to a controversial contemporary political figure.
We could offer a complete list of the Clinton scandals, but even AIM’s in-depth reports have space limits. Suffice it to say, none of these examples elicited the slightest detectable curiosity from the “dean” of White House reporters, who told her HBO interviewers there is nothing like “being there” to “see history in the making.”
Example #5 - The Double Standard
“Thank you, Mr. President” showed Helen Thomas asking Richard Nixon some penetrating Watergate questions after the 37th president had effusively congratulated her on national television for ascending to the office of Washington Bureau Chief at UPI. The “doyenne” of the fawning press corps was also shown going after President Reagan on the trumped-up “Iran-Contra” case.
Even Shales’ critique misses the point in that he opines of Thomas, “But she can’t be accused of party partisanship, expressing fondness for Ronald Reagan, albeit mitigated (‘very affable, but very, very distant’) and disappointment in Jimmy Carter (‘missed his calling…would have been a great minister.’)”
Reagan’s steadfast determination to block the Soviet drive for world domination—despite contrary advice by some of the men around him—totally belies the Thomas portrayal of our 40th president as someone who was easily led by his White House inner circle.
Thomas runs interference for Jimmy Carter’s failed foreign policies by saying, “I think his greatest [gift] to the country is that he made human rights the centerpiece of his foreign policy.”
Not one word about the results of that “human rights” crusade: the demise of the Shah of Iran and the takeover by a hard-boiled Islamist state, followed by the taking of Americans as hostages for 444 days.
And how does the “dean” deal with Bill Clinton having been credibly accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick in Arkansas in 1978? On the day the story broke in The Wall Street Journal, this was her incisive question to the president:
“What lessons have you learned from your thirteen-month ordeal [as the Broaddrick rape case is added to the Lewinsky affair]?”
Obviously, there is a pattern here in the Helen Thomas reportage: As viewed by this “gatekeeper” who “can’t be accused of party partisanship,” alleged Republican scandals are to be pursued to the ends of the earth, but a Democrat president accused of rape is forced to withstand an “ordeal.”
Thomas judges that Lyndon Johnson should have had “more courage to pull out [of Vietnam] and it did him in.” Missing was the slightest hint that Johnson’s “no-win” strategy is what actually “did him in.”
More Thomasisms include that George W. Bush is the “worst president” in history and that if Cheney runs for president “I’ll kill myself” and that Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a “G—damned liar.”
There is a tiny minority of conservative reporters at the White House, but none as outspoken in his/her views as the liberal Helen Thomas. John Gizzi, the longtime political editor of the conservative weekly Human Events, often has asked penetrating questions without making speeches.
But let a conservative journalist show up who does high-profile offense to the sensibilities of the liberal herd orthodoxy, and the long knives are out.
“Gannongate”
Much of this story was told in a 2005 column by AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid, but the highlights are worth reviewing here in light of efforts to canonize Helen Thomas.
As Kincaid wrote, the left-wing bloggers had “taken the scalp of an online conservative journalist [Jeff Gannon]” because he was deemed “too pro-Republican, attended White House briefings, and asked questions unfair to Democrats.” The left-wing Media Matters group dubbed the whole affair the “White House press room scandal.”
But Kincaid noted that Helen Thomas had been giving anti-Bush speeches disguised as questions at these briefings for years without any critical comment from the liberals.
In his book The Great Media War, giving his side of the story, the controversial Gannon quotes Thomas as calling him “a propagandist, a flak for the White House.” Given Thomas’s history as recounted above, it is fair to say that Helen Thomas—a flak for almost every leftist cause to come down the pike—is hardly in a position to upbraid anyone for being a shill or a “propagandist.”
Here is the question Gannon posed (Jan. 26, 2005) that caused his liberal colleagues to go ballistic:
“Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy being on the verge of collapse. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and [that] there’s no crisis there. How are you going to work to reach out to these people...how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”
One can argue that Gannon’s question was worded in such a way as to violate the unspoken White House press corps culture that only liberal reporters are allowed the luxury of speechifying.
But two things need to be made clear—Gannon was working for Talon News, then an openly conservative opinion website that made no pretense at objectivity. And Gannon’s question was legitimate: How could the White House hope to reach across the aisle to Democrats so hardened against giving any ground in a compromise?
Read the rest of the article here
My favorite Helen Thomas moment with the late, great and greatly missed Tony Snow:
Congressman Frank Criticizes Obama Administration
Congressman Frank Wolf Criticizes Obama Administration for Silence During UN Review of China's Human Rights Record
Reprinted with permission from www.ChinaAid.org
MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 13 /Christian Newswire/ -- In remarks on the House floor on February 9, ChinaAid learned that Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) criticized the Obama Administration for failing to actively participate in a United Nations review of the human rights records of "four of the worst offenders of human rights and religious freedom in the world": China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Congressman Wolf said he was "disappointed" that the United States has been silent during the Universal Periodic Review, the review occurring only every four years, by the U.N. Human Rights Council. "The Obama Administration made a pledge to place human rights at the top of its agenda," Wolf said. "By staying silent, it is off to the wrong start."
In addition speaking on the floor, Rep. Wolf sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voicing his disappointment. (See link below.) Below are Rep. Wolf's prepared remarks for the House titled "U.S. Delegation Silent at U.N. Review of Human Rights Abusers":
"The United Nations Human Rights Council is now conducting reviews of the human rights records of 16 countries-among which are China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Russia.
"While the United States is not a member of the Human Rights Council, every member of the U.N. has an opportunity to pose questions and raise concerns about the human rights record of the country being reviewed.
"I was shocked and disappointed to learn that for the last week, the U.S. delegation has been silent. How can America say nothing about four of the worst offenders of human rights and religious freedom in the world?
"China has been designated by the State Department's annual Religious Freedom report as a country of particular concern every year since 1999. And the U.S. delegation has remained silent.
"Saudi Arabia, too, has received this designation for the past four years. And the U.S. delegation has remained silent.
"The U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom placed Cuba on their watch list in 2008. And the U.S. delegation has remained silent.
"This administration made a pledge to place human rights at the top of its agenda. The administration is off to the wrong start on making human rights a priority."
(See remarks at http://wolf.house.gov/)
ChinaAid wishes to express gratitude to Rep. Wolf and other U.S. officials who are holding the Chinese government accountable for abuse against citizens because of their faith.
See Congressman Wolf's remarks here
I don't know if anyone is keeping track, but it doesn't appear that Obama has done one thing he said he was going to do. Shocker.
There are many people being imprisoned and tortured because of their faith, especially in China. This is one of the reasons I vehemently opposed the Olympics being held in China and felt the U.S. should have abstained. We greatly compromised our principles on that one. Imagine what the political and religious prisoners must have thought hearing the sounds of people rejoicing while they lay in their filthy cells.
Isn't it funny that Ashley Judd will make a fool of herself with her video about Sarah Palin and the wolves but not a peep about the religious prisoners who die for their faith in the world. Pathetic.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Sad Saga of Joaquin Phoenix
David Letterman's behavior is reprehensible. I adore Joaquin Phoenix and I think Hollywood probably just ate him up, like it did his brother. He is too gentle for phonies. This is heartbreaking. Someone please help him.
Rescuing Sprite, A Loving Tribute to His Dog by Mark Levin
I stayed up until the wee hours of the morning reading this book. If you are a dog lover, you will identify with this book. It will make you cry and laugh and remember. I thought of my dog, Casper, all the while I was reading this. We lost Casper last December, after a long bout with diabetes and cancer. I miss him every day.
You can buy the book at www.amazon.com
As Sean Hannity Always Introduced Him, "The Great Mark Levin"
I totally agree with Sean, by the way.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Henrietta Hughes Gets a Home
Remember Henrietta? Here's a reminder:
Obama is going to do everything he can to help her. She doesn't have a car and needs a new kitchen. Gee. Well, that's a sad story. I sure wish I had thought to ask my president for a handout when I was raising my two kids alone, working three jobs. Someone did offer to really help though. And it wasn't the president and it wasn't a democrat.
A Small Child Will Lead Them
This girl is 12 years old and she is amazing. She talks about abortion and hits every major point of the pro-life movement. Way to go!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Memories of Years Ago
I was talking to my brother, Pat, today. He lives in Oregon now. I don't see him often but there was a time when we were very close. In fact, he and I lived together for years, starting in Oklahoma and he followed me to Kansas and then California. While living in Kansas, as a single mother of two and attending the university in Topeka, we lived very frugally. We had an old black and white TV set my father had given me years ago and in order to get reception, one of us would have to go out on the roof (I rented the second and third floors of this house) and adjust the antenna. The picture was never very good but we always made sure to watch at midnight when Monty Python came on. This was our favorite skit and we talked about that and old times tonight. Hard to believe that was so very long ago, well over 30 years now. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)