Guest writing at Left Coast Rebel, New Conservative Generation sums up ObamaLand in a single word: Cronyism.
Every single thing that Obama has done since taking office has been orchestrated to satisfy the two main goals of his administration; consolidate power under his command and control and reward his tools.
Obama has consolidated power by appointing an unprecedented number of “czars” who take their orders, and answer to no one but the Big O himself. This Merry Band of Miscreants includes those who “skirt the law” and at least one Mad Scientist and none who have ever been confirmed.
But back to the citations of cronyism:
In February, Congress passed and Obama wrote into law his stimulus plan making ACORN eligible for billions of taxpayer money. Surely, this is not cronyism. Then in March, he decided to partner with ACORN to conduct the census. Apparently, having 14 voter fraud investigations is still within Obama’s definition of responsible and cannot be considered cronyism.
In April, Obama turned the rule of law on its head and rushed a bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of Chrysler that placed the UAW, not the autoworkers, over the interests of the company bondholders. The word cronyism comes to mind.
In June, Obama fired Inspector General Walpin as he was closing in on an investigation tying Obama supporter Kevin Johnson to fraudulent use of AmeriCorps funds. One might call this act cronyism. Perhaps this was a new form of executive accountability?
In July, Obama announced his new financial regulations to mitigate the likelihood of future bank failures. Obama was originally considering the notion of breaking up some of the country's largest financial institutions, but changed his mind. Or shall I say, GE Capital changed his mind for him. If you didn't know, GE owns MSNBC. Can anyone say, “Cronyism?”
Obama supporters claim that it “has only been five months” and we need to give Obama “time”. Time to do what?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Proposed Exceptions In The Health Care Legislation
On Friday, Pat at And So it Goes in Shreveport wrote that Rep. John Fleming (D) Louisiana has proposed a Resolution that members of Congress be covered under the same health care plan that Congress is trying to foist on the rest of us. Today, writing at RedState Moe Lane also reports on the story:
Rep. Fleming:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration’s proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
Lane’s take:
You can tell that Rep Fleming is a freshman: he’s still able to believe that Congressional Democrats can be motivated by shame.
I’m not surprised that Congress would try to protect their only extremely generous benefits. Think of the money taxpayers would save if Congressman were subject to the pension benefits, or lack thereof, the rest of us are subject to. But this isn’t the first exemption that Congress has tried to slide in to their health care plan:
June 26 (Bloomberg)-- The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.
So, the unions would keep their cushy benefits but instead of the costs being buried in the price of a GM or Chrysler vehicle, and paid for by people who choose to buy GM or Chrysler vehicles, the taxpayers would pick up the cost. Put these two exemptions together and our Congressman seem much more Politburo than representatives of the citizens of the United States.
Rep. Fleming:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration’s proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
Lane’s take:
You can tell that Rep Fleming is a freshman: he’s still able to believe that Congressional Democrats can be motivated by shame.
I’m not surprised that Congress would try to protect their only extremely generous benefits. Think of the money taxpayers would save if Congressman were subject to the pension benefits, or lack thereof, the rest of us are subject to. But this isn’t the first exemption that Congress has tried to slide in to their health care plan:
June 26 (Bloomberg)-- The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.
So, the unions would keep their cushy benefits but instead of the costs being buried in the price of a GM or Chrysler vehicle, and paid for by people who choose to buy GM or Chrysler vehicles, the taxpayers would pick up the cost. Put these two exemptions together and our Congressman seem much more Politburo than representatives of the citizens of the United States.
Addressing The Republican Royalty
Filed it under, “Damn, I wish I said that.”:
… and you’ve got that “Ways of the Working Class” textbook on your desk, don’t you, Peggy? I’ll bet it’s heavily indexed with Post-Its, sticking out from the thick pages in a pastel rainbow. Does anyone else find it surreal that she tries to dismiss Palin’s alleged pretensions to middle-class origins by explaining that her father was a school track coach, and her mother was the school secretary? Whoa, you got her there, Peg. She might pose as a moose-hunting soccer mom, but she was to the manor born. What fools we middle-class conservatives were, to accept this scion of soccer-coaching royalty as one of us, just because she hid her imperial velvet beneath a plaid shirt.
That was Dr. Zero responding to this puzzling statement by Peggy Noonan:
She is not working class, never was, and even she, avid claimer of advantage that she is, never claimed to be and just lets others say it. Her father was a teacher and school track coach, her mother the school secretary. They were middle-class figures of respect, stability and local status. I think intellectuals call her working-class because they see the makeup, the hair, the heels and the sleds and think they’re working class “tropes.” Because, you know, that’s what they teach in “Ways of the Working Class” at Yale and Dartmouth.
My reaction to the sheer ass-backwardness of Noonan’s claim is, “What the Hell?”
As a member of the “Conservatives who Count” club, it would be helpful if Noonan explained the “class system” to us so we could be spared from confusing our “tropes” in the future. I would ask, however, that Ms. Noonan use small words and short sentences for those of us, like Palin, never learned to think.
Just kidding Pegs, we get it. You and the members of your club resent it when the commoners question, nay disagree, with the Republican ruling class. The problem is, you don’t get it. Robert Stacy McCain puts it this way:
Whatever one says pro or con about Palin, I believe the anti-elitist impulses of the Palinistas are valid and legitimate. Their "populist" resentments are entirely justified by the undemocratic beliefs and practices of the snobs who pat themselves on the back by celebrating the hegemony of a phony "meritocracy."
The problem is that segment of the Republican party that oscillates between ignoring the base and belittling the base yet expects the base to hang on their every word and do the party’s bidding. Sarah Palin has made it clear that she is not beholden to the elites, and you know what, neither is the base.
Dr. Zero’s excellent piece.
Reaction:
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Crisis and Manufactured Crisis
Via Newser:
Rahm Emanuel famously said, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." The American people, to their credit, seem unwilling to let the Obama team exploit this crisis as thoroughly as they'd like to.- William Kristol
I doubt that Mr. Emanuel would admit it, but as it happens the American people aren’t nearly as compliant or complacent as the thugs from Chicago had believed. On the other hand, Obama & Co. appear convinced that by extending the crisis that they can wear the public down.
President Barack Obama said his $787 billion stimulus bill “has worked as intended” as he pushed back against Republican criticism that his recovery program has failed to rescue the economy.
Taking the President at his word, 9.5% unemployment is no fluke. So if increasing unemployment is a feature of “the recovery” what is the President’s end game? It seems that every single thing that has come out of Washington since Obama took over has been counter-intuitive to solving the economic crisis. So when he says the stimulus “has worked as intended” it is reasonable to ask, “what were you intending?”
None of the Obama administration’s grand schemes are working, Kristol continues, and even trusted allies in the media are bemoaning the sad state of affairs. “Why such long faces?” Kristol wonders. Because, despite the horror of the Bush years, “the American public hasn't fundamentally rethought their turn in 1980 away from big government liberalism.” Kristol quotes Michael Barone: “Americans seem to be recoiling against big government when it threatens to become a reality rather than a campaign promise.”
The Administration underestimated American’s independent spirit and it has set them back from where they thought they would be at this point. Let’s hope that it is the first of many such setbacks.
Rahm Emanuel famously said, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." The American people, to their credit, seem unwilling to let the Obama team exploit this crisis as thoroughly as they'd like to.- William Kristol
I doubt that Mr. Emanuel would admit it, but as it happens the American people aren’t nearly as compliant or complacent as the thugs from Chicago had believed. On the other hand, Obama & Co. appear convinced that by extending the crisis that they can wear the public down.
President Barack Obama said his $787 billion stimulus bill “has worked as intended” as he pushed back against Republican criticism that his recovery program has failed to rescue the economy.
Taking the President at his word, 9.5% unemployment is no fluke. So if increasing unemployment is a feature of “the recovery” what is the President’s end game? It seems that every single thing that has come out of Washington since Obama took over has been counter-intuitive to solving the economic crisis. So when he says the stimulus “has worked as intended” it is reasonable to ask, “what were you intending?”
None of the Obama administration’s grand schemes are working, Kristol continues, and even trusted allies in the media are bemoaning the sad state of affairs. “Why such long faces?” Kristol wonders. Because, despite the horror of the Bush years, “the American public hasn't fundamentally rethought their turn in 1980 away from big government liberalism.” Kristol quotes Michael Barone: “Americans seem to be recoiling against big government when it threatens to become a reality rather than a campaign promise.”
The Administration underestimated American’s independent spirit and it has set them back from where they thought they would be at this point. Let’s hope that it is the first of many such setbacks.
Happy Thoughts Saturday
Sarah Palin is currently the most vilified person on the Planet which is breathtaking when you consider she has beat out Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Manuel Noriega and Kim Jong-il. Heck, when you consider the likes of John Mellencamp and Fat Man Moore I don’t even know how she made it in to the Top Ten. Although, if Al Franken called on some of his friends anything is possible.
But anyway, it is Saturday. The sun is glorious and the breeze off the Bay is divine so forgive me while I ponder on a very happy thought courtesy of Prof. William Jacobson:
If Palin were President, we would not have:
A debt and deficit rising so far out of proportion to historical norms as to threaten the near-and-long term viability of the country's ability to service the debt without destroying the value of the dollar, and passing on to our children and grandchildren unsustainable burdens.
A stimulus package filled with pork and giveaways to political constituencies, pushed through under false and fraudulent claims of job creation, and exaggerated claims of immediate economic disaster which themselves hurt the markets, in a process so disgusting that not a single Representative or Senator read the bill before voting.
Health care proposals which are wolves in sheep's clothing, using a seemingly benign "public option" to drive out private insurers, to increase the percentage of people dependent on the government, and eventually to obtain the "one nation, one plan" nationalization of health care which is the holy grail of Obama and his left-wing supporters.
A "cap-and-trade" proposal which seeks to regulate and tax the most fundamental aspects of the economy based upon the pure hubris that bureaucrats in Washington are capable of knowing what is best for individual businesses, and arising from disputed science as to the existence and causes of global warming, while proponents like Al Gore stand ready to make fortunes from "trading" carbon credits.
A foreign policy which strong-arms allies such as Israel and Honduras, while paying deference to enemies such as Hugo Chavez and Mahmood Ahmadinejad, and which denigrates the U.S. by showing subservience to foreign rulers and by distorting the historical role of the U.S.
An energy policy which increases our current dependence of foreign oil by locking up domestic resources, in the speculative hope that someday, somehow, alternative energy sources will make up the difference.
The use of federal government power to bully the private sector into giving up property rights in favor of unions and other political supporters of the administration, rather than letting the rule of law work in the normal fashion in auto industry bankruptcy proceedings, as happened with other industries that restructured
Take heart, only three and a half years to go.
But anyway, it is Saturday. The sun is glorious and the breeze off the Bay is divine so forgive me while I ponder on a very happy thought courtesy of Prof. William Jacobson:
If Palin were President, we would not have:
A debt and deficit rising so far out of proportion to historical norms as to threaten the near-and-long term viability of the country's ability to service the debt without destroying the value of the dollar, and passing on to our children and grandchildren unsustainable burdens.
A stimulus package filled with pork and giveaways to political constituencies, pushed through under false and fraudulent claims of job creation, and exaggerated claims of immediate economic disaster which themselves hurt the markets, in a process so disgusting that not a single Representative or Senator read the bill before voting.
Health care proposals which are wolves in sheep's clothing, using a seemingly benign "public option" to drive out private insurers, to increase the percentage of people dependent on the government, and eventually to obtain the "one nation, one plan" nationalization of health care which is the holy grail of Obama and his left-wing supporters.
A "cap-and-trade" proposal which seeks to regulate and tax the most fundamental aspects of the economy based upon the pure hubris that bureaucrats in Washington are capable of knowing what is best for individual businesses, and arising from disputed science as to the existence and causes of global warming, while proponents like Al Gore stand ready to make fortunes from "trading" carbon credits.
A foreign policy which strong-arms allies such as Israel and Honduras, while paying deference to enemies such as Hugo Chavez and Mahmood Ahmadinejad, and which denigrates the U.S. by showing subservience to foreign rulers and by distorting the historical role of the U.S.
An energy policy which increases our current dependence of foreign oil by locking up domestic resources, in the speculative hope that someday, somehow, alternative energy sources will make up the difference.
The use of federal government power to bully the private sector into giving up property rights in favor of unions and other political supporters of the administration, rather than letting the rule of law work in the normal fashion in auto industry bankruptcy proceedings, as happened with other industries that restructured
Take heart, only three and a half years to go.
Could China Style Forced Abortion Come To The United States? Yes, If Environmentalists Have Any Say
Via The Daley Gator:
Eco-Abortion:
My pro-life position is fairly well known but I admit, I am glad that the woman referenced in the video won’t be having children; the fewer nutcases on the planet the better. But what if that woman, or someone like her, was in the position to force their nutty ideas on the rest of us?
In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
That is from page 838 of Ecoscience by John Holdren. Unfortunately, Holdren is some lone wacko; he is President Obama’s Science Czar!
Zombie Time has a thorough examination of Holdren’s fascist insanity including excerpts from Ecoscience. From page 787-8:
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
What does it say about the current administration that they have put someone in a position of authority who advocates slipping sterilants in to our food and drinking supply? Are we supposed to feel grateful that there is at least some consideration given to the harmful side effects of a clandestine mass drugging of the population?
This “czar” was appointed by Obama and answers only to Obama. Why would the President bring an environmental nut job whose proposals are straight out of Nazi Germany? He wouldn’t unless he didn’t think these ideas are absolutely bizarre.
Global Warming is the greatest hoax in all of history and its believers are evil little Hitlerites who would force their skewed vision on us through taxation, regulation and it seems, forced abortion and sterilization. I have to wonder, who are they “saving” the Planet for?
Friday, July 10, 2009
Hastings and Sanchez Want To Criminalize Free Speech
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air tells the tale of two bills and my best advice is BE AFRAID.
From Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) of my own state of Florida, we get HR 645. Ed sites Mark Tapscott:
Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: “This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as ‘extremists.’”
Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up “not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations” capable of housing “a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster.” But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps “to meet other appropriate needs” - none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.
It’s not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a “domestic terrorist” and send them to a government-run camp.
If that doesn’t scare you enough, combine it with HR 1966 introduced by Rep, Linda Sanchez (D):
‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Call me paranoid but I am getting the feeling that Hastings and Sanchez are trying to criminalize the free speech of those opposed to the Administration’s policies. Anyone who has read Mark Steyn, Blazing Cat Fur or Ezra Levant is well aware of the legalized assault on free speech in Canada. Restricting opinion for any reason should be vigorously opposed by anyone who values the free exchange of ideas but unlike the Canadian model that uses the threat of financial ruin to suppress expression, Hastings and Sanchez also threaten imprisonment in “camps.” I can’t help but think of Cuba or North Korea.
We are a country that looks at the evil that routinely takes place throughout the world and think, “that could never happen here.” Probably not. But, did you ever think someone would propose these types of laws here? Sometimes unimaginable things happen.
From Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) of my own state of Florida, we get HR 645. Ed sites Mark Tapscott:
Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: “This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as ‘extremists.’”
Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up “not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations” capable of housing “a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster.” But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps “to meet other appropriate needs” - none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.
It’s not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a “domestic terrorist” and send them to a government-run camp.
If that doesn’t scare you enough, combine it with HR 1966 introduced by Rep, Linda Sanchez (D):
‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Call me paranoid but I am getting the feeling that Hastings and Sanchez are trying to criminalize the free speech of those opposed to the Administration’s policies. Anyone who has read Mark Steyn, Blazing Cat Fur or Ezra Levant is well aware of the legalized assault on free speech in Canada. Restricting opinion for any reason should be vigorously opposed by anyone who values the free exchange of ideas but unlike the Canadian model that uses the threat of financial ruin to suppress expression, Hastings and Sanchez also threaten imprisonment in “camps.” I can’t help but think of Cuba or North Korea.
We are a country that looks at the evil that routinely takes place throughout the world and think, “that could never happen here.” Probably not. But, did you ever think someone would propose these types of laws here? Sometimes unimaginable things happen.
Friday Link Up
Sorry this took so long to put this up tonight. There are so many great posts out there that I had a hard time narrowing things down.
Not everyone is blinded by the glow of The One’s magnificent charisma. El Campeador posts on Abu Mansour al-Amriki, an American born terrorist who is less than impressed by Our Supreme Leader’s greatness.
And So It Goes In Shreveport reports on a most excellent idea-instead of Congress enjoying that super duper health plan they have now, how about sticking them with the same coverage they are trying to foist on us? While we’re at it, about those pensions …
You have to wonder about women like Judith Warner who are so consumed by Palin hatred that they’ve become defined by their sickness. Prof. Jacobson explains:
How unfair it must seem to people like Judith Warner that a supposed simpleton like Sarah Palin achieved so much. I mean, aren't the world's riches reserved for those who did well on the SAT's?And the hatred of women who do not fit the NY Times' mold owes much to snobs like Judith Warner, who sit on their perch passing judgment on everyone else, while refusing to examine their own shortcomings.
Smitty at The Other McCain opines on Progressive Heaven. Remember, you can checkout any time you want, but you can never leave.
Track-A-’Crat knows a idiot when he sees one and boy does Rep. Alcee Hastings fit the bill:
But, proving once more that the combination of stupidity and ambition should never be underestimated, Hastings is now going one better, proposing an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues as terrorists!
Speaking on knowing one when you see it, The Daley Gator has The World’s UGLIEST Dog! Not even a mother could love that puppy!
Bless Cynthia Yockey, she’s taken on big hitters like Krauthammer and Goldberg, little pukes like Letterman and she has a sense of humor.
No Sheeples Here is incredible for the pictures alone and her posts like this one are the cherry on top.
Comrade Paco brings us obamunism. Resistance is futile. Compliance is mandatory.
Lastly, I would strongly recommend Stacey McCain’s IQ, Temperament and ’Meritocracy’ is incredible. McCain has a knack for taking complicated subjects and boiling them down to the basics while preserving the central premise.
Not everyone is blinded by the glow of The One’s magnificent charisma. El Campeador posts on Abu Mansour al-Amriki, an American born terrorist who is less than impressed by Our Supreme Leader’s greatness.
And So It Goes In Shreveport reports on a most excellent idea-instead of Congress enjoying that super duper health plan they have now, how about sticking them with the same coverage they are trying to foist on us? While we’re at it, about those pensions …
You have to wonder about women like Judith Warner who are so consumed by Palin hatred that they’ve become defined by their sickness. Prof. Jacobson explains:
How unfair it must seem to people like Judith Warner that a supposed simpleton like Sarah Palin achieved so much. I mean, aren't the world's riches reserved for those who did well on the SAT's?And the hatred of women who do not fit the NY Times' mold owes much to snobs like Judith Warner, who sit on their perch passing judgment on everyone else, while refusing to examine their own shortcomings.
Smitty at The Other McCain opines on Progressive Heaven. Remember, you can checkout any time you want, but you can never leave.
Track-A-’Crat knows a idiot when he sees one and boy does Rep. Alcee Hastings fit the bill:
But, proving once more that the combination of stupidity and ambition should never be underestimated, Hastings is now going one better, proposing an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues as terrorists!
Speaking on knowing one when you see it, The Daley Gator has The World’s UGLIEST Dog! Not even a mother could love that puppy!
Bless Cynthia Yockey, she’s taken on big hitters like Krauthammer and Goldberg, little pukes like Letterman and she has a sense of humor.
No Sheeples Here is incredible for the pictures alone and her posts like this one are the cherry on top.
Comrade Paco brings us obamunism. Resistance is futile. Compliance is mandatory.
Lastly, I would strongly recommend Stacey McCain’s IQ, Temperament and ’Meritocracy’ is incredible. McCain has a knack for taking complicated subjects and boiling them down to the basics while preserving the central premise.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Democracy And Faux Leadership
Those of us who believe that “democracy” is not a dirty word are understandably keeping a close eye on Iran and Honduras. The fall back position of the Administration is that we, the United States, MUST support the “democratically elected” leaders of Iran and Honduras. This is completely disingenuous, as pointed out by Sen, DeMint in the following clip provided by The Other McCain. Sen. DeMint rightfully states that dictators often use the mantle of democracy to legitimize their despotic rule. There is no shortage of illegitimate “elected” rulers who fall in to this category; Chavez, Castro, Noriega and to a lesser state, but no less the same, Franken. Using either force or deceptive practices contradicts democracy and negates any protected status falsely elected “leaders” claim.
Steny Hoyer, Do You think Something's Funny?
Think about this for a moment: Tomorrow you go in to work and the man who signs your paycheck tells you he has some questions about your job performance. The boss starts questioning some of your decisions and how you arrived at decisions and you respond by laughing in his face. In fact, you seize the moment to go all Good As Gold by saying, “I don’t know” (obscure reference but well worth it). You don’t know how you arrived at your point and you don’t care. There may, or may not, have been some research done but you didn’t read it and quite frankly, you think it is laughable that the person who pays you expects just a little it more.
Welcome to the unemployment line, UNLESS, you are a member of Congress. In the little people’s World, we are held accountable by our bosses. We give a day's work for a day's pay and a whole HELL of a lot more. But in CongressLand, the workers (congressmen) expect, no demand, that the people who hired them (taxpayers) accept their shoddy work. They believe we should smile subserviently and say, “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
PARENTLY WARNING! Mom and Dad, stop reading NOW! (my parents occasionally come by) Bull flipping shit! Puppies, I put you in your job and I can take you out. I am accountable for the job I do and it is high time you are too. I expect my Congressman to know what they write, read what they write and be able to coherently stand up for what the write. I don’t want to hear excuses about “staffers” because I didn’t hire any staffers, you did, and YOU are the only person who is accountable to ME.
While we’re on the subject, wipe that grin off your face and stop laughing. Ain’t nothing funny here, and if there is, trust me, I’ll be laughing last.
Welcome to the unemployment line, UNLESS, you are a member of Congress. In the little people’s World, we are held accountable by our bosses. We give a day's work for a day's pay and a whole HELL of a lot more. But in CongressLand, the workers (congressmen) expect, no demand, that the people who hired them (taxpayers) accept their shoddy work. They believe we should smile subserviently and say, “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
PARENTLY WARNING! Mom and Dad, stop reading NOW! (my parents occasionally come by) Bull flipping shit! Puppies, I put you in your job and I can take you out. I am accountable for the job I do and it is high time you are too. I expect my Congressman to know what they write, read what they write and be able to coherently stand up for what the write. I don’t want to hear excuses about “staffers” because I didn’t hire any staffers, you did, and YOU are the only person who is accountable to ME.
While we’re on the subject, wipe that grin off your face and stop laughing. Ain’t nothing funny here, and if there is, trust me, I’ll be laughing last.
The Left, Eugenics And Ruth Bader Ginsberg
In a case of great minds, and namesakes thinking alike, Carol at No Sheeples Here! and I read Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s comments on Harris v. McRae and immediately thought, “Margaret Sanger.”
The case in question dealt with the use of Medicaid funding for abortions and the words in question by Justice Ginsberg were, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”
Margaret Sanger is the “mother” of abortion and Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, Now and all of the ‘kill them early, kill them late, kill them often’ coalition who idolize Sanger, keep her intense support (and their?) for eugenics on the down low. Eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling and not surprisingly, Adolf Hitler. Oh, and based on, "…particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Abortionists and those who love them, no longer flaunt their desire to eliminate “undesirables”, ie, blacks, Jews, the disabled, etc., but their mind set hasn’t changed. Thank God, Ginsberg is retiring. There are enough sick puppies in the World and we don’t need one on the Supreme Court.
UPDATE: The Daley Gator recognizes EVIL when it comes down the pike also.
The case in question dealt with the use of Medicaid funding for abortions and the words in question by Justice Ginsberg were, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”
Margaret Sanger is the “mother” of abortion and Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, Now and all of the ‘kill them early, kill them late, kill them often’ coalition who idolize Sanger, keep her intense support (and their?) for eugenics on the down low. Eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling and not surprisingly, Adolf Hitler. Oh, and based on, "…particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Abortionists and those who love them, no longer flaunt their desire to eliminate “undesirables”, ie, blacks, Jews, the disabled, etc., but their mind set hasn’t changed. Thank God, Ginsberg is retiring. There are enough sick puppies in the World and we don’t need one on the Supreme Court.
UPDATE: The Daley Gator recognizes EVIL when it comes down the pike also.
So How's That Carbon Emissions Thing Working Out?
For all those whiney fascist Greenies who want to impose their delusional world view on the rest of us, may I just say, suck on this:
Washington, D.C.-During a hearing today in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA's analysis.
So what’s Plan B for taking over the World?
Washington, D.C.-During a hearing today in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA's analysis.
So what’s Plan B for taking over the World?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Ros-Lehtinen Proposes Cutting Funds To The OAS
From Babalu:
Ros-Lehtinen Proposes Amendment to Cut Funding to OAS
Funds would be re-routed to support the National Endowment for Democracy(WASHINGTON) - U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today offered an amendment to the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (H.R. 3081) to cut funding to the Organization of American States. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen:
“The OAS is fast abandoning its founding mandate.
“From its warm overtures towards the Cuban tyrants to its knee-jerk support of Manuel Zelaya, echoing the rhetoric and agenda of autocratic leaders like Chavez, Morales, and Ortega, the OAS is losing credibility as an entity that stands for democratic institutions, human rights, and the rule of law.
“U.S. funds can be better spent elsewhere where they can truly be used to advance the freedom agenda.
“For this reason, my amendment transfers funds from the OAS to the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization which fights for fundamental freedoms and democracy worldwide and which recently recognized the brave efforts of five dissidents and peaceful opposition leaders fighting for freedom in Cuba.”
Note: Ros-Lehtinen’s amendment reduces funding to the OAS by $15 million and transfers this amount to the National Endowment for Democracy.
There isn’t much I can add. I have little hope that in the current political culture where our President is continuously reaching out to despots who oppress their own citizens that Ros-Lehtinen’s amendment will fly but I am very proud that she has taken a stand.
Ros-Lehtinen Proposes Amendment to Cut Funding to OAS
Funds would be re-routed to support the National Endowment for Democracy(WASHINGTON) - U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today offered an amendment to the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (H.R. 3081) to cut funding to the Organization of American States. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen:
“The OAS is fast abandoning its founding mandate.
“From its warm overtures towards the Cuban tyrants to its knee-jerk support of Manuel Zelaya, echoing the rhetoric and agenda of autocratic leaders like Chavez, Morales, and Ortega, the OAS is losing credibility as an entity that stands for democratic institutions, human rights, and the rule of law.
“U.S. funds can be better spent elsewhere where they can truly be used to advance the freedom agenda.
“For this reason, my amendment transfers funds from the OAS to the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization which fights for fundamental freedoms and democracy worldwide and which recently recognized the brave efforts of five dissidents and peaceful opposition leaders fighting for freedom in Cuba.”
Note: Ros-Lehtinen’s amendment reduces funding to the OAS by $15 million and transfers this amount to the National Endowment for Democracy.
There isn’t much I can add. I have little hope that in the current political culture where our President is continuously reaching out to despots who oppress their own citizens that Ros-Lehtinen’s amendment will fly but I am very proud that she has taken a stand.
The Obama Administration: Home Inspectors UPDATED
Via Stephen Spruiell at The Corner
While I have focused on the tax aspect of Cap and Trade, something in the Waxman Marxist Bill slipped right past me:
Jimmie Bise at the American Issues Project has a great follow-up on the cap-and-trade bill's onerous home-retrofit mandates, which Kevin Williamson and I wrote about last week. Get this:
Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live. What that's saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill.
The bill enforces compliance by withholding tradable emissions allowances and other goodies from state governments until they crack down on the slackers. And once you comply with the directive to retrofit your home, the government reimburses you for no more than half of your expenses. Of course, the bill's authors could make the argument that the nation's biggest energy hogs don't need the money.
Okay, let me state right up front that my house was built in 1923 and there is no way on Heaven or Earth that it would pass an inspection an I can’t even imagine what ’retrofitting’ it would cost. That being said, what the hell right does the government have inspecting my home to ensure that it is energy efficient? What right does the government have to force me to pay thousands of dollars for retrofitting before they will issue me a permit to get my roof fixed?
This absolutely smacks of fascism. What’s next, will the government be inspecting our pantries to ensure that our daily intake of food is in compliance with the food pyramid? Perhaps at the grocery checkout the government could charge a special tax whose food selections don’t meet the correct meat to fruit/vegetable ratio.
Obama has become the Micro-Manager in Chief. Maybe he should let us worry about our day to day lives and get back to what he does best-wrecking the economy.
Updated:
The comment left on this post by Anonymous illustrates the backword and fascist thinking of the Greenies:
What right do you have using up more than your share of natural resources to keep your antiquated home heated and cooled. What right do you have adding more than your fair share of carbon to the atmosphere and making it that much harder for my children's children to live on this earth.
Someone finally has the balls to say enough is enough. we cannot live this way anymore. I applaud President Obama.
As far as the economy goes. It is hard to fix what has all been destroyed by the previous village idiot from Texas.
What is the first problem with the comment? The commenter hit the keyboard without any facts. I know facts can be pesky and inconvenient but they can occasionally be helpful, Let’s examine:
My house was built in 1923 and is certainly antiquated. While my home does have the “modern” conveniences of electricity and running water it costs exactly zero and uses zero natural resources to heat and cool it because it is equipped with neither heat or air conditioning (there are ceiling fans in both the living room and dining room).
Heat when necessary (not often, this is Florida after all) is provided by the fireplace. Cooling is provided by the home’s design. The house is on the water and the front faces the water which always provides a breeze. As is typical of ‘cracker’ cottages built in the early part of the last century, it has a deep front porch which shades the front of the house and all of the windows have large metal awnings. Is the house as cool as it would be if it were air conditioned, no, but it is comfortable.
I like my little house but unlike Anonymous I don’t think I have the right to impose my lifestyle on everyone else. I don’t think the government has that right either. I think Anonymous is a fascist and like all fascists he/she gets some kind of smug satisfaction by imposing their ideals on others. I have a theory that fascists’ need to control others is because they lack, or feel that they lack, control over their own lives. That is too bad.
While I have focused on the tax aspect of Cap and Trade, something in the Waxman Marxist Bill slipped right past me:
Jimmie Bise at the American Issues Project has a great follow-up on the cap-and-trade bill's onerous home-retrofit mandates, which Kevin Williamson and I wrote about last week. Get this:
Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live. What that's saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill.
The bill enforces compliance by withholding tradable emissions allowances and other goodies from state governments until they crack down on the slackers. And once you comply with the directive to retrofit your home, the government reimburses you for no more than half of your expenses. Of course, the bill's authors could make the argument that the nation's biggest energy hogs don't need the money.
Okay, let me state right up front that my house was built in 1923 and there is no way on Heaven or Earth that it would pass an inspection an I can’t even imagine what ’retrofitting’ it would cost. That being said, what the hell right does the government have inspecting my home to ensure that it is energy efficient? What right does the government have to force me to pay thousands of dollars for retrofitting before they will issue me a permit to get my roof fixed?
This absolutely smacks of fascism. What’s next, will the government be inspecting our pantries to ensure that our daily intake of food is in compliance with the food pyramid? Perhaps at the grocery checkout the government could charge a special tax whose food selections don’t meet the correct meat to fruit/vegetable ratio.
Obama has become the Micro-Manager in Chief. Maybe he should let us worry about our day to day lives and get back to what he does best-wrecking the economy.
Updated:
The comment left on this post by Anonymous illustrates the backword and fascist thinking of the Greenies:
What right do you have using up more than your share of natural resources to keep your antiquated home heated and cooled. What right do you have adding more than your fair share of carbon to the atmosphere and making it that much harder for my children's children to live on this earth.
Someone finally has the balls to say enough is enough. we cannot live this way anymore. I applaud President Obama.
As far as the economy goes. It is hard to fix what has all been destroyed by the previous village idiot from Texas.
What is the first problem with the comment? The commenter hit the keyboard without any facts. I know facts can be pesky and inconvenient but they can occasionally be helpful, Let’s examine:
My house was built in 1923 and is certainly antiquated. While my home does have the “modern” conveniences of electricity and running water it costs exactly zero and uses zero natural resources to heat and cool it because it is equipped with neither heat or air conditioning (there are ceiling fans in both the living room and dining room).
Heat when necessary (not often, this is Florida after all) is provided by the fireplace. Cooling is provided by the home’s design. The house is on the water and the front faces the water which always provides a breeze. As is typical of ‘cracker’ cottages built in the early part of the last century, it has a deep front porch which shades the front of the house and all of the windows have large metal awnings. Is the house as cool as it would be if it were air conditioned, no, but it is comfortable.
I like my little house but unlike Anonymous I don’t think I have the right to impose my lifestyle on everyone else. I don’t think the government has that right either. I think Anonymous is a fascist and like all fascists he/she gets some kind of smug satisfaction by imposing their ideals on others. I have a theory that fascists’ need to control others is because they lack, or feel that they lack, control over their own lives. That is too bad.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Big Al, Nazis and Deniers
Jimmie at The Sundries Shack thinks Big Al is losing it:
Al Gore has gone completely around the bend, folks. His shame and sense of decency has expired and lies moldering in the ditch where he tossed them because he needed the room for more faux righteous anger.
The righteousness is faux but the anger is real. Al suffers from “I’m smart and you’re not” syndrome and he’s none too happy that the common trash (that’s me and you) are pissing in his Wheaties.
Look, Al is smart. He’s been awarded a Nobel Prize (yeah, Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat did lower that bar). If he says that that Global Warming is man-made we need to shut up and listen. He’s made 150 million dollars preaching the Gospel of Global Warming and he’s not in the mood to put up with a bunch of deniers messing with his livelihood when he’s got a $30,000 utility bill to pay for.
Most reasonable people would be uncomfortable comparing Gore’s fight against Global Warming to the fight against Nazi Germany. After all, the murder of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis is and was the greatest evil in human history. On the other hand, Global Warming may well be one of the greatest fantasies in human history. If there is anyone who knows fantasy, it is the man who invented the internet and inspired Love Story.
The Right Way and The Wrong Way
Compare this from Gov. Sarah Palin’s resignation speech:
And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it.
To this:
The chart, from govtrack.us represents Barack Obama’s voting record in the US Senate. Overall, Obama missed one out of four votes during his four years in the Senate. During his last two years in the Senate he missed 46% or almost one out of every two votes. During the fourth quarter of 2007 he missed 89.4% of the Senate votes. In other words, he hit the road, drew his paycheck and milked it. He took the taxpayers money but did not do the job the taxpayers had hired him to do.
Sarah Palin is doing things the right way.
And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it.
To this:
The chart, from govtrack.us represents Barack Obama’s voting record in the US Senate. Overall, Obama missed one out of four votes during his four years in the Senate. During his last two years in the Senate he missed 46% or almost one out of every two votes. During the fourth quarter of 2007 he missed 89.4% of the Senate votes. In other words, he hit the road, drew his paycheck and milked it. He took the taxpayers money but did not do the job the taxpayers had hired him to do.
Sarah Palin is doing things the right way.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Wealthy People Have A bigger Carbon Footprint? Who Knew?
From Reuters
To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.
Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Calling Al Gore. Calling Mr. Gore
"As countries develop -- India, China, Brazil and others -- over time, they'll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they'll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future," he said.
These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.
Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich?
But wouldn’t that affect all those socially responsible, environmentally conscientious people in Hollywood?
Well, that just smacks of class warfare. On the other hand, what goes around…
To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.
Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Calling Al Gore. Calling Mr. Gore
"As countries develop -- India, China, Brazil and others -- over time, they'll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they'll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future," he said.
These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.
Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich?
But wouldn’t that affect all those socially responsible, environmentally conscientious people in Hollywood?
Well, that just smacks of class warfare. On the other hand, what goes around…
Were People Just Not Listening?
I think the thing that has gotten me the most since Gov. Palin’s announcement that she would give up the governorship is the speculation. Why is it so hard to except the reasons gave at face value? Thank God for Robert Stacy McCain, who gets it:
I've got MSNBC on my office TV and the mid-day newsette just referred to Palin's "baffling" resignation. It's not baffling. Palin explained her reasons, and her reasons sounded entirely plausible to me. What baffles the pundits is the fact that it was (a) unexpected, and (b) doesn't fit the established script for presidential hopefuls.
The people who pronounce themselves "baffled," and who conclude that Palin has made a stupid move by resigning, are leaving a couple of things out of their calculations. First, Palin is a Christian who, in the past, has made straightforward reference to the will of God. What she believes -- what she must believe -- is that if it is God's will that she become president, she will. Therefore, the conventional wisdom of the commetariat and all the advice from political "experts" are just so much noise to her.
Second, Palin's closest adviser is her husband, Todd. He is not stupid. He is also not a man who will show up on TV and blabber his every thought for the sake of creating the impression that he knows everything.
Just because you don't know what Sarah Palin is doing doesn't mean that she doesn't know what she's doing.
Look, Sarah wasn’t speaking French, though I don’t doubt that establishment types would have preferred it, she was pretty clear about her reasons. She has good reasons and she is handling the situation in a (trolls, sit down and grab a paper bag to breath in to) logical, professional and intelligent manner.
I’m not going to go through all her stated reasons, but I do want to touch on the reason I admire most. She said it wasn’t her style to accept a paycheck for a job that she wasn’t giving 100% to. She could have kicked back and accepted a check, others have done it. But the Left and tied her, and Alaska, with expensive, time consuming and bogus ethics investigations. Fifteen times they tried and fifteen times they failed. In the meantime, Alaska spent over two million dollars on this vindictive foolishness and the Palin’s have spent five hundred thousand dollars of their own money. And the only way to end it was for Palin to step down. She didn’t have to, she could have collecting those paychecks but that would have been counter to her values.
I also believe that if it is God’s will, Sarah will continue and become stronger. If it is His will, she will be President. I learned the hard way that I can’t impose my will on God, so I’ll hang in there. But if I’m allowed, against the conventional wisdom of my betters, to express optimism, let me just say, “I feel good.”
I've got MSNBC on my office TV and the mid-day newsette just referred to Palin's "baffling" resignation. It's not baffling. Palin explained her reasons, and her reasons sounded entirely plausible to me. What baffles the pundits is the fact that it was (a) unexpected, and (b) doesn't fit the established script for presidential hopefuls.
The people who pronounce themselves "baffled," and who conclude that Palin has made a stupid move by resigning, are leaving a couple of things out of their calculations. First, Palin is a Christian who, in the past, has made straightforward reference to the will of God. What she believes -- what she must believe -- is that if it is God's will that she become president, she will. Therefore, the conventional wisdom of the commetariat and all the advice from political "experts" are just so much noise to her.
Second, Palin's closest adviser is her husband, Todd. He is not stupid. He is also not a man who will show up on TV and blabber his every thought for the sake of creating the impression that he knows everything.
Just because you don't know what Sarah Palin is doing doesn't mean that she doesn't know what she's doing.
Look, Sarah wasn’t speaking French, though I don’t doubt that establishment types would have preferred it, she was pretty clear about her reasons. She has good reasons and she is handling the situation in a (trolls, sit down and grab a paper bag to breath in to) logical, professional and intelligent manner.
I’m not going to go through all her stated reasons, but I do want to touch on the reason I admire most. She said it wasn’t her style to accept a paycheck for a job that she wasn’t giving 100% to. She could have kicked back and accepted a check, others have done it. But the Left and tied her, and Alaska, with expensive, time consuming and bogus ethics investigations. Fifteen times they tried and fifteen times they failed. In the meantime, Alaska spent over two million dollars on this vindictive foolishness and the Palin’s have spent five hundred thousand dollars of their own money. And the only way to end it was for Palin to step down. She didn’t have to, she could have collecting those paychecks but that would have been counter to her values.
I also believe that if it is God’s will, Sarah will continue and become stronger. If it is His will, she will be President. I learned the hard way that I can’t impose my will on God, so I’ll hang in there. But if I’m allowed, against the conventional wisdom of my betters, to express optimism, let me just say, “I feel good.”
How Much Can It Get? Lots.
Via Don Surber:
From Jim Pinkerton at Fox News:
The economy is shaping up to be Barrack Osama’s Katrina. If President George W. Bush was blamed for his slow response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 -- there was plenty of blame to go around, of course, but the disaster was on Bush's watch--then Osama will get the blame for his slow response to the current recession. The difference, of course, is that Katrina afflicted a city and a few states, while the recession afflicts the whole country.
Unemployment is 9.5 percent and rising fast, certain to go higher than 10 percent. And what is the federal government doing about it? Not much. And so House Republican Leader John Boehner makes a good point when he asks, "Where are the jobs?"
On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said that the Osama administration had "misread" the economic indicators. So what are they likely to do about it? More of the same--which is to say, not much.
Considering that the administration refuses to rule a second stimulus, more of the same could push this country right over the edge.
“Where are the jobs?” There aren’t any. The stimulus was nothing more or less than political payola. The faithful have been rewarded, on the taxpayer’s dime, and they will remain faithful come hell or high water.
How much, in dollar and cents, is the census worth to ACORN? Beyond that, he who holds the pen writes the numbers. In other words, ACORN puts Obama in office, he gives them the huge census contract and viola(!), despite that fact Obama’s policies have caused the public to become more conservative, the numbers come back to favor the liberals. Granted, I am projecting a bit on the end game, but would you bet against it?
As long as the administration is keeping the (donor) base happy and the (dependent) base dependent, the rest us can be damned. Three and a half years from now Obama will still be using the ‘I’ word, INHEREITED, and the chosen will still be parroting it.
From Jim Pinkerton at Fox News:
The economy is shaping up to be Barrack Osama’s Katrina. If President George W. Bush was blamed for his slow response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 -- there was plenty of blame to go around, of course, but the disaster was on Bush's watch--then Osama will get the blame for his slow response to the current recession. The difference, of course, is that Katrina afflicted a city and a few states, while the recession afflicts the whole country.
Unemployment is 9.5 percent and rising fast, certain to go higher than 10 percent. And what is the federal government doing about it? Not much. And so House Republican Leader John Boehner makes a good point when he asks, "Where are the jobs?"
On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said that the Osama administration had "misread" the economic indicators. So what are they likely to do about it? More of the same--which is to say, not much.
Considering that the administration refuses to rule a second stimulus, more of the same could push this country right over the edge.
“Where are the jobs?” There aren’t any. The stimulus was nothing more or less than political payola. The faithful have been rewarded, on the taxpayer’s dime, and they will remain faithful come hell or high water.
How much, in dollar and cents, is the census worth to ACORN? Beyond that, he who holds the pen writes the numbers. In other words, ACORN puts Obama in office, he gives them the huge census contract and viola(!), despite that fact Obama’s policies have caused the public to become more conservative, the numbers come back to favor the liberals. Granted, I am projecting a bit on the end game, but would you bet against it?
As long as the administration is keeping the (donor) base happy and the (dependent) base dependent, the rest us can be damned. Three and a half years from now Obama will still be using the ‘I’ word, INHEREITED, and the chosen will still be parroting it.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Is There A Price For Being A Bottom Feeding Liar?
Gateway is reporting that Sarah Palin is mad (rightfully) and now she is thinking about using the legal means at her disposal to get even:
Sarah Palin's legal councel released a statement quashing rumors that Governor Palin resigned due to a criminal investigation.Her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, also threatened to take legal action against those liberal blogs and the state-run media for slandering the governor.
This won’t do a thing about the countless, tasteless schmucks that got their jollies by using her children as the backsides of their “jokes.” They are covered under the First Amendment but those in the media who created stories and disseminated them knowing that there was no basis would do well to ponder the words, “what goes around, comes around.”
I have no doubt that if Palin follows through and files suit that there will be a lot talk about “chilling effect” coming from the Left. What exactly is that chilling effect? That the media will no longer be able to lie with impunity? Will it force them to deal with issues and policies and leave personalities out of politics? Tough nookies. It’s called accountability and if it ends up biting some ass-wipe on the butt, three cheers!
Sarah Palin's legal councel released a statement quashing rumors that Governor Palin resigned due to a criminal investigation.Her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, also threatened to take legal action against those liberal blogs and the state-run media for slandering the governor.
This won’t do a thing about the countless, tasteless schmucks that got their jollies by using her children as the backsides of their “jokes.” They are covered under the First Amendment but those in the media who created stories and disseminated them knowing that there was no basis would do well to ponder the words, “what goes around, comes around.”
I have no doubt that if Palin follows through and files suit that there will be a lot talk about “chilling effect” coming from the Left. What exactly is that chilling effect? That the media will no longer be able to lie with impunity? Will it force them to deal with issues and policies and leave personalities out of politics? Tough nookies. It’s called accountability and if it ends up biting some ass-wipe on the butt, three cheers!
The Changing Face Of "Democracy"
Democracy under President George W. Bush:
Democracy under President Barack H. Obama:
Manuel Zelaya, bolstered by his cronies, Chavez, Castro and Noriega, is hoping to spark bloodshed by returning to Honduras. Where does President make his stand? On the wrong side of freedom, of course.
As Prof. Jacobson states,
Reports are that ousted President Manuel Zelaya will return to Honduras Sunday, July 5, regardless of what Hondurans want. The Catholic Church in Honduras has asked Zelaya not to return to avoid bloodshed, and the military says that it intends on arresting him on court warrants if he returns.
Venezuela has already spoken of returning Zelaya to power, by force, if necessary. The dictators in the region, aided and abetted by President Obama will use any violence caused by Zelaya’s return as an excuse to invade.
Obama has good reason to fall back on the often meaningless term “democratically elected.” It provides cover for dictatorships who manipulate the ballot box to achieve the desired result. But the people in Iran and Honduras recognize it for what it is, moral duplicity.
Updated:
Fausta is putting out continuous updates Legal Insurrection is following Hunter’s Smith’s on the ground reports. Smith is a former Marine who is posting at Honduras Abandoned. The name of Smith’s blog should stir shame in all free people. Honduras is not some far flung place on the other side of the world (not that it should matter). We should pull out of the OAS and stand up for our neighbors who support freedom and democracy.
Democracy under President Barack H. Obama:
Manuel Zelaya, bolstered by his cronies, Chavez, Castro and Noriega, is hoping to spark bloodshed by returning to Honduras. Where does President make his stand? On the wrong side of freedom, of course.
As Prof. Jacobson states,
Reports are that ousted President Manuel Zelaya will return to Honduras Sunday, July 5, regardless of what Hondurans want. The Catholic Church in Honduras has asked Zelaya not to return to avoid bloodshed, and the military says that it intends on arresting him on court warrants if he returns.
Venezuela has already spoken of returning Zelaya to power, by force, if necessary. The dictators in the region, aided and abetted by President Obama will use any violence caused by Zelaya’s return as an excuse to invade.
Obama has good reason to fall back on the often meaningless term “democratically elected.” It provides cover for dictatorships who manipulate the ballot box to achieve the desired result. But the people in Iran and Honduras recognize it for what it is, moral duplicity.
Updated:
Fausta is putting out continuous updates Legal Insurrection is following Hunter’s Smith’s on the ground reports. Smith is a former Marine who is posting at Honduras Abandoned. The name of Smith’s blog should stir shame in all free people. Honduras is not some far flung place on the other side of the world (not that it should matter). We should pull out of the OAS and stand up for our neighbors who support freedom and democracy.
No Kidding, Joe
Biden: We ‘Misread the Economy’. You don’t say? Another more direct way of saying it would be, we’ve gotten every single thing we’ve done since taking office ass backwards, but let’s face it, our Joe isn’t known for his honesty.
Joe can play every blunder off by employing the administration’s favorite word, “inherited” but the truth is they are doing a whole lot of breaking and not much fixing.
Joe says they won’t rule out another “stimulus package.” Can someone please grab the shovel out of these Bozo’s hands before they dig themselves to China? Oh, wait…
The Giddiness Before The Storm?
Since Friday’s announcement that Gov. Sarah Palin would step down as governor of Alaska, Memeorandum has been packed with reactions. Most of it is what you would expect. Since coming on to the national scene Sarah Palin has been met repeatedly by snark, juvenile cruelty (oops, pulled down and lame apology posted in its place) and monumental nuttiness. The truth is, if Sarah Palin were a liberal she could leave someone to die under a bridge and not face the scrutiny and criticism that she has had to endure for the simple ‘crime’ of being a conservative woman.
Cynthia Yockey has it right when she calls the Palin detractors bullies. Instead of going after Palin on policy issues, the media attacked her children. Now these same low lifes are calling her a “quitter”. It remains to be seen if Palin is cutting bait or throwing off the shackles. I am inclined to go with the latter.
So bring it on. But naysayers, detractors and plain, old fashioned idiots enjoy the moment. That “sweet” taste of success may not linger.
Cynthia Yockey has it right when she calls the Palin detractors bullies. Instead of going after Palin on policy issues, the media attacked her children. Now these same low lifes are calling her a “quitter”. It remains to be seen if Palin is cutting bait or throwing off the shackles. I am inclined to go with the latter.
So bring it on. But naysayers, detractors and plain, old fashioned idiots enjoy the moment. That “sweet” taste of success may not linger.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Enviromental Group Equates Happiness With Tyranny
If like me you suspect that the Greenies won’t be happy until we’re all back living in caves take a gander at this list:
1. Costa Rica
2. Dominican Republic
3. Jamaica
4. Guatemala
5. Vietnam
6. Colombia
7. Cuba
8. El Salvador
9. Brazil
10. Honduras
11. Nicaragua
12. Egypt
13. Saudi Arabia
14. Philippines
15. Argentina
So, which of these countries would you want to live in? According to Ashley Seager at the Guardian, Costa Rica is the world’s greenest, happiest country. Heaven help us, the above list represents the countries that come closest to meeting the New Economics Foundation's standards for “one-planet living.”
The message is that by shrinking your “carbon footprint” you can actually be happier. Nonsense. Being dropped off in the middle of nowhere may make for a good reality show (I wouldn’t know), but I bet there are more people living in the above listed countries who given the opportunity would move to the United States than Americans who would go live in Vietnam, Cuba, Egypt, et al.
Contrast the list of “greenest” and thus “happiest” countries with the list of countries that enjoy the greatest freedom:
1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. Ireland
5. New Zealand
6. United States
7. Canada
8. Denmark
9. Switzerland
10. United Kingdom
11. Chile
12. Netherlands
13. Estonia
14. Iceland
15. Luxemburg
I am not at all surprised that there are no over-lapping countries on these two lists but I suspect that there is a correlation between living free and being happy that the Greenies completely discount. Environmentalists (and progressives of every stripe) would restrict individual freedom to promote their agenda. Cap and Trade is a perfect example. Cap and Trade represents huge taxation which will lower the standard of living for every American and restrict American’s abilities to pursue their own definition of happiness.
Any group whose agenda is dependent on the restriction of individual liberty and freedom, regardless of their ’good intentions’, is not a group that Americans should support. We, as citizens, need to work diligently to remain on the second list and avoid any push towards the fascism inherent in the first list.
h/t Fausta's Blog
1. Costa Rica
2. Dominican Republic
3. Jamaica
4. Guatemala
5. Vietnam
6. Colombia
7. Cuba
8. El Salvador
9. Brazil
10. Honduras
11. Nicaragua
12. Egypt
13. Saudi Arabia
14. Philippines
15. Argentina
So, which of these countries would you want to live in? According to Ashley Seager at the Guardian, Costa Rica is the world’s greenest, happiest country. Heaven help us, the above list represents the countries that come closest to meeting the New Economics Foundation's standards for “one-planet living.”
The message is that by shrinking your “carbon footprint” you can actually be happier. Nonsense. Being dropped off in the middle of nowhere may make for a good reality show (I wouldn’t know), but I bet there are more people living in the above listed countries who given the opportunity would move to the United States than Americans who would go live in Vietnam, Cuba, Egypt, et al.
Contrast the list of “greenest” and thus “happiest” countries with the list of countries that enjoy the greatest freedom:
1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. Ireland
5. New Zealand
6. United States
7. Canada
8. Denmark
9. Switzerland
10. United Kingdom
11. Chile
12. Netherlands
13. Estonia
14. Iceland
15. Luxemburg
I am not at all surprised that there are no over-lapping countries on these two lists but I suspect that there is a correlation between living free and being happy that the Greenies completely discount. Environmentalists (and progressives of every stripe) would restrict individual freedom to promote their agenda. Cap and Trade is a perfect example. Cap and Trade represents huge taxation which will lower the standard of living for every American and restrict American’s abilities to pursue their own definition of happiness.
Any group whose agenda is dependent on the restriction of individual liberty and freedom, regardless of their ’good intentions’, is not a group that Americans should support. We, as citizens, need to work diligently to remain on the second list and avoid any push towards the fascism inherent in the first list.
h/t Fausta's Blog
Independence Day
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
On July 4, 1776 the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence and the United States of America became the standard for freedom throughout the world.
For 233 years we have used our might not to enslave other countries but to bring to the peoples of the world the freedom that each of us enjoy.
God Bless the men and women who serve and have served in the United States military. God Bless then for keeping my family free.
Friday, July 3, 2009
TGIF! By Which I Mean !!!
Over at The Other McCain, Smitty is very thoughtful in Jenny Sanford on the moral high ground. I have pretty much accepted that my opinion of Gov. Sanford is out of the mainstream, and I really wish that he would be quiet, I’ve been stunned by the harshness shown to Mrs. Sanford. Smitty understands that offering forgiveness does not a doormat make. Refreshing.
Gator Doug speculates, rightly I hope, that Sarah Palin has made the big move towards 2012. Cynthia Yockey is supportive of a Palin candidacy
The One may have thrown the freedom seeking citizens of Iran under the bus but the vast majority of us, including some Big Names, stand up for democracy.
Speaking of Obama‘s big yellow bus, the people of Honduras are feeling the tires. Thank you to Fausta, Babalu and Prof. Jacobson for keeping us informed.
Track-A-‘Crat says it’s called “hope’n'change” but it feels like ‘bent over a chair.’
Paco is always good for a smile and some, um, reliable products. Plus, his Happy Feet Friday is a must!
Barack Milhaus Obama? Next thing you know, Biden will be spouting off about “effete snobs.”
Well, the night is hot, the beer is cold and the breeze off the bay is to die for. I’ve got some unwinding to do so ya’ll have a goodnight.
Gator Doug speculates, rightly I hope, that Sarah Palin has made the big move towards 2012. Cynthia Yockey is supportive of a Palin candidacy
The One may have thrown the freedom seeking citizens of Iran under the bus but the vast majority of us, including some Big Names, stand up for democracy.
Speaking of Obama‘s big yellow bus, the people of Honduras are feeling the tires. Thank you to Fausta, Babalu and Prof. Jacobson for keeping us informed.
Track-A-‘Crat says it’s called “hope’n'change” but it feels like ‘bent over a chair.’
Paco is always good for a smile and some, um, reliable products. Plus, his Happy Feet Friday is a must!
Barack Milhaus Obama? Next thing you know, Biden will be spouting off about “effete snobs.”
Well, the night is hot, the beer is cold and the breeze off the bay is to die for. I’ve got some unwinding to do so ya’ll have a goodnight.
Shake 'Em Up, Sarah!
The web is inundated with reaction to Gov. Sarah Plain’s announcement that she will step down as governor later this month. As a Palin supporter I welcome this announcement and echo the words of Cynthia Yockey:
My reaction to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s announcement today that she will step down on July 25 is that I hope to God she will devote all her energy to winning the presidency in 2012.
My reaction to my newly fellow conservatives and Republicans is that with friends like you, her enemies can relax.
Sarah Palin is not just the best candidate we have now or can foresee. Sarah Palin is the BEST CANDIDATE WE HAVE HAD SINCE RONALD REAGAN! We have NO other candidate with Sarah Palin’s intelligence and charisma and qualifications to be president. DEAL! For heaven’s sakes, it’s time we get behind Gov. Palin and support her and pull together!
Sarah has driven liberals, and some conservatives, absolutely moon bat crazy for reasons I stated yesterday. In response, the crazies have tried to embarrass her with trumped up ethics charges. None of these charges held water, but each required time that could have been better spent taking care of Alaska’s business. The resignation frees Palin to take a more active roll in getting the GOP and this country back on solid footing.
In keeping with her strong character, Palin is taking the harder road. As she stated, she could have kicked back, worked on her resume and milked her paycheck. So let the pundits shake their heads and the liberals wag their tongues. I am proud of Sarah Palin and proud to support her.
The Fragile Conscience Of A Liberal
Via Memeorandum:
My Mom always said that if you throw a rock at a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one that was hit. Paul Krugman let out a yelp today. Krugman is unhappy with the Wall Street Journal over its opinions on what Krugman terms the “fake scandal” at the EPA, their opinion on the current unemployment figures and their op-ed on the Minnesota Senate Race. Oh, and everything else they’ve written in the last 35 years:
I mean, they’re not stupid — life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they’re not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth — one that is, in effect, told only to Inner Party members, while the Outer Party makes do with prolefeed.The question is, what is that higher truth? What do these people really believe in?
It is interesting that Krugman doesn’t merely accuse the WSJ of being wrong. Because they espouse ideas that contradict his own, Krugman has labeled them liars. Krugman credits himself with a twofer; they know he’s right, but they are liars.
Krugman writes under the schticky The Conscience of a Liberal. I would change the title if I were him. Any conscience so fragile that it recoils from disagreement should not milling about we lower classes.
My Mom always said that if you throw a rock at a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one that was hit. Paul Krugman let out a yelp today. Krugman is unhappy with the Wall Street Journal over its opinions on what Krugman terms the “fake scandal” at the EPA, their opinion on the current unemployment figures and their op-ed on the Minnesota Senate Race. Oh, and everything else they’ve written in the last 35 years:
I mean, they’re not stupid — life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they’re not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth — one that is, in effect, told only to Inner Party members, while the Outer Party makes do with prolefeed.The question is, what is that higher truth? What do these people really believe in?
It is interesting that Krugman doesn’t merely accuse the WSJ of being wrong. Because they espouse ideas that contradict his own, Krugman has labeled them liars. Krugman credits himself with a twofer; they know he’s right, but they are liars.
Krugman writes under the schticky The Conscience of a Liberal. I would change the title if I were him. Any conscience so fragile that it recoils from disagreement should not milling about we lower classes.
When Small Men Rewrite History
Via Memorandum:
If you are still wondering what caliber of characters we’ve got stumbling about the Capitol this article from the Washington Examiner should pretty much settle it.
At Wednesday’s Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford – a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante – told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan’s name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport.“It was just a discussion. We’re not aware of anything specific,” MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.
It’s clear that the current crop of congressional leaders want no part of Reagan’s grand conservative vision for America, but erasing all trace of his memory from an airport that’s already been named in his honor is about as petty as you can get.
Why would anybody on Capitol Hill even consider such a patently partisan move, which is guaranteed to make Democrats look small and ridiculous? Do they so fear the inevitable comparisons between the Great Communicator and his teleprompted successor in the White House?
Petty? Small and ridiculous? How about revisionist bastards? Taking Reagan’s name won’t stop comparisons between him and Obama. Reagan brought down The Wall and supported freedom and democracy throughout the world. In contrast, President ‘Let ‘em eat cake’ Obama has turned his back on democracy in both Iran and Honduras. Reagan faced down dictators. Obama embraces them.
JammieWearingFool has suggested that they might skip the formalities and rename it King Obama Airport now. Somehow I imagine ‘Lord and King Obama Airport’ would be more to The One’s liking.
If you are still wondering what caliber of characters we’ve got stumbling about the Capitol this article from the Washington Examiner should pretty much settle it.
At Wednesday’s Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford – a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante – told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan’s name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport.“It was just a discussion. We’re not aware of anything specific,” MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.
It’s clear that the current crop of congressional leaders want no part of Reagan’s grand conservative vision for America, but erasing all trace of his memory from an airport that’s already been named in his honor is about as petty as you can get.
Why would anybody on Capitol Hill even consider such a patently partisan move, which is guaranteed to make Democrats look small and ridiculous? Do they so fear the inevitable comparisons between the Great Communicator and his teleprompted successor in the White House?
Petty? Small and ridiculous? How about revisionist bastards? Taking Reagan’s name won’t stop comparisons between him and Obama. Reagan brought down The Wall and supported freedom and democracy throughout the world. In contrast, President ‘Let ‘em eat cake’ Obama has turned his back on democracy in both Iran and Honduras. Reagan faced down dictators. Obama embraces them.
JammieWearingFool has suggested that they might skip the formalities and rename it King Obama Airport now. Somehow I imagine ‘Lord and King Obama Airport’ would be more to The One’s liking.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Children Of Jihad
Via Memeorandum:
So if you lived in a country where the per capita income was only $2,600 a year what you do to make a quick $7,000 to $14,000? According to the Washington Times if you live in Pakistan you would sell your own child to the Taliban to be used as a suicide bomber.
Pakistan's top Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, is buying children as young as 7 to serve as suicide bombers in the growing spate of attacks against Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. targets, U.S. Defense Department and Pakistani officials say.
Using child suicide bombers "is the grim reality of the Taliban Frankenstein that now threatens to overwhelm the Pakistani state," said Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution scholar who chaired a review of Pakistan-Afghanistan strategy for President Obama.
How depraved would a people have to be to sell their children knowing that they will be blown up? Suicide bombing is an indiscriminate evil. Groups are the target but individuals are the target. That any person could support anonymous killing is mind boggling. That a parent would sell their own innocent child is incomprehensible.
President Bush spoke of winning over hearts and minds. People who don’t value their own children are too consumed by hate to win over.
Related posts: Atlas Shrugs, Right Pundits, Hot Air
So if you lived in a country where the per capita income was only $2,600 a year what you do to make a quick $7,000 to $14,000? According to the Washington Times if you live in Pakistan you would sell your own child to the Taliban to be used as a suicide bomber.
Pakistan's top Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, is buying children as young as 7 to serve as suicide bombers in the growing spate of attacks against Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. targets, U.S. Defense Department and Pakistani officials say.
Using child suicide bombers "is the grim reality of the Taliban Frankenstein that now threatens to overwhelm the Pakistani state," said Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution scholar who chaired a review of Pakistan-Afghanistan strategy for President Obama.
How depraved would a people have to be to sell their children knowing that they will be blown up? Suicide bombing is an indiscriminate evil. Groups are the target but individuals are the target. That any person could support anonymous killing is mind boggling. That a parent would sell their own innocent child is incomprehensible.
President Bush spoke of winning over hearts and minds. People who don’t value their own children are too consumed by hate to win over.
Related posts: Atlas Shrugs, Right Pundits, Hot Air
Let's Talk Tacky
Michelle Malkin brings us the tackiest story of the year:
Fans who wish to attend Michael Jackson’s star-studded memorial service at Staples Center will have to shell out $25 to sit in the stands, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.
Family, friends and VIPS will have seats on the main floor for The Tuesday, July 7th Staples service, first reported by RadarOnline.com, while the general public will be plucking down $25 to sit in the stands.
The memorial service will feel like a concert production featuring guest speakers, a lot of music and video screens inside and outside of Staples, a source close to the planning tells RadarOnline.com.
Miss Manners would not approved.
Fans who wish to attend Michael Jackson’s star-studded memorial service at Staples Center will have to shell out $25 to sit in the stands, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.
Family, friends and VIPS will have seats on the main floor for The Tuesday, July 7th Staples service, first reported by RadarOnline.com, while the general public will be plucking down $25 to sit in the stands.
The memorial service will feel like a concert production featuring guest speakers, a lot of music and video screens inside and outside of Staples, a source close to the planning tells RadarOnline.com.
Miss Manners would not approved.
Support For Democracy In Honduras
Via Babalu
“Americans should support the Honduran people and their legitimate leaders in their brave and heroic stand for freedom and the rule of law.”
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
The Statement:
"The people of Honduras have struggled too long to have their hard-won democracy stolen from them by a Chavez-style dictator. The Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the Honduran military have acted in accordance to the Honduran constitution and the rule of law.
“For weeks leading to his arrest, Zelaya flouted the constitutional authority of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court, and claimed for himself extra-constitutional control of his nation’s military and political institutions. Every institution from the Electoral Tribunal to the Supreme Court ruled that his actions were unjustified and illegal. Zelaya’s open defiance of democratic norms has set Honduras on a path toward violence, instability, and tyranny.
“I am hopeful that as President Obama grows in office, he will eventually turn away from despots like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Zelaya, and give the United States’ full-throated support to the people of any country who are fighting for the same values we cherish and defend in America. The people fighting for freedom around the world, in Iran and Honduras, should never have to wonder which side America will choose between freedom and tyranny.
“President Obama’s call for the reinstatement of Zelaya is a slap in the face to the people of Honduras. And the resolution written by the Organization of American States tramples over the hopes and dreams of a free and democratic people.
“The rule of law is working in Honduras. President Obama should not undermine the democratic institutions that guarantee freedom by forcing an illegitimate President back into power.
“This is not an ideal transition, but Hondurans are adhering to their constitution. The United States should support the Honduran people and their legitimate leaders in their brave and heroic stand for freedom and the rule of law.”
Did you that thousands took the streets of Honduras in support of their new president?
Probably not if you get your news from the MSM. Gateway Pundit has the story.
As always, Fausta is on top of the latest on Honduras.
Everything You Need To Know About Why The Left Hates Sarah Palin
Via Memeorandum
Today I read the best explanation of why liberals hate Sarah Palin in the National Review:
Conservatism, they suspect, will leave you in a marriage that doesn't satisfy you, burden you with children you don't want, repress your passions, and trap you in a empty, boring, and unfulfilled life, with no hand of government able to help.
Today almost everyone faces some sort of challenge in balancing work and family; I don't know too many people who believe there are sufficient hours in a day. And then along comes this woman who's made all of these "conservative" choices and now has an amazing career, a supportive husband, a beautiful family, and great health and appearance, and she bears it all, including the inevitable hard times, with pluck and a smile, as far as we can tell. (For all we know, perhaps behind closed doors, Sarah Palin screams into a pillow when it all gets to be too much. But what we know about her suggests she relieves her stress by shooting moose.)
A short while back, Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum suggested, only half-jokingly, that actress Angelina Jolie's "entire Oscar-winning, serial-adopting, Brad Pitt-snagging, plane-piloting, unattainably hot-looking existence makes women around the world feel hopelessly inadequate and therefore unhappy." Perhaps Sarah Palin is the Angelina Jolie of the political world.
In her opponents' minds, Palin's made all the wrong choices, and cannot, they insist, be very bright. Yet she's happy and successful. She is an anomaly that invalidates their worldview, and for that, they attempt to immiserate her — regardless of whether she wishes to run for national office again.
Support for this theory comes from the unlikeliest corner, The Huffington Post
As to why Vanity Fair and other liberal outlets go after her, the answer is quite simple: money. With uncounted thousands from the left who equally hate Palin, Vanity Fair and the other outlets understand -- especially in a bad economy with declining circulation -- that there is gold to be mined from the fragile minds of those who hate. For them, this is the story that keeps giving. And as long as the uncounted haters from the left continue to froth at the mouth at the very mention of Palin, Vanity Fair, Keith Olbermann, and others, will feed the beast for ratings and revenue.
Fine. I get that. But why Dowd and the feminists? With regard to The New York Times columnist, I asked a female friend of mine who happens to be a psychologist, what might prompt the anger? She mentioned a host of possibilities, but settled on one theory. That being that Dowd "may be threatened or envious of Palin... or both. As an aging but still attractive woman, Dowd may resent Palin's good looks. Further, as a single woman of a certain age, she may be envious that Palin has a husband, a family, and has carved out an accomplished political career."
To which the writer adds:
With regard to why Purdum, David Letterman, and other liberal males continually go after Palin, the answer might be as easy as they secretly lust after her while also seeing her as the "girlfriend of the quarterback" they could never get in high school. Seriously, look at the "men" who belittle Palin on a regular basis. For the most part, they fit the description of "the pencil-neck geek" from high school. Are they now trying to make Palin pay for their long-ago inadequacies? Is that why Letterman imagines her now as a "Slutty Flight Attendant?" Because she is his fantasy and rather than admit it, he strikes out at her?
And concludes:
In summary, we know that the left really, really, really hates Palin, that the left-wing media needs Palin to stay in business, that certain liberal female columnists may be envious of her, that certain liberal male reporters and talk-show hosts may lust after her, that the GOP is still populated with disloyal weasels who put self before all, and that Sarah Palin is still standing tall.
Well it all makes sense but given Palin’s beauty, stylishness and sassy attitude why haven’t gay men embraced her as their modern day Julie Newmar? Robert Stacy McCain has the answer here, here, here, and here.
The upshot is that Sarah Palin represents everything the Left hates, fears, lusts after and is envious of. Most of all, they wish they could be her.
Today I read the best explanation of why liberals hate Sarah Palin in the National Review:
Conservatism, they suspect, will leave you in a marriage that doesn't satisfy you, burden you with children you don't want, repress your passions, and trap you in a empty, boring, and unfulfilled life, with no hand of government able to help.
Today almost everyone faces some sort of challenge in balancing work and family; I don't know too many people who believe there are sufficient hours in a day. And then along comes this woman who's made all of these "conservative" choices and now has an amazing career, a supportive husband, a beautiful family, and great health and appearance, and she bears it all, including the inevitable hard times, with pluck and a smile, as far as we can tell. (For all we know, perhaps behind closed doors, Sarah Palin screams into a pillow when it all gets to be too much. But what we know about her suggests she relieves her stress by shooting moose.)
A short while back, Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum suggested, only half-jokingly, that actress Angelina Jolie's "entire Oscar-winning, serial-adopting, Brad Pitt-snagging, plane-piloting, unattainably hot-looking existence makes women around the world feel hopelessly inadequate and therefore unhappy." Perhaps Sarah Palin is the Angelina Jolie of the political world.
In her opponents' minds, Palin's made all the wrong choices, and cannot, they insist, be very bright. Yet she's happy and successful. She is an anomaly that invalidates their worldview, and for that, they attempt to immiserate her — regardless of whether she wishes to run for national office again.
Support for this theory comes from the unlikeliest corner, The Huffington Post
As to why Vanity Fair and other liberal outlets go after her, the answer is quite simple: money. With uncounted thousands from the left who equally hate Palin, Vanity Fair and the other outlets understand -- especially in a bad economy with declining circulation -- that there is gold to be mined from the fragile minds of those who hate. For them, this is the story that keeps giving. And as long as the uncounted haters from the left continue to froth at the mouth at the very mention of Palin, Vanity Fair, Keith Olbermann, and others, will feed the beast for ratings and revenue.
Fine. I get that. But why Dowd and the feminists? With regard to The New York Times columnist, I asked a female friend of mine who happens to be a psychologist, what might prompt the anger? She mentioned a host of possibilities, but settled on one theory. That being that Dowd "may be threatened or envious of Palin... or both. As an aging but still attractive woman, Dowd may resent Palin's good looks. Further, as a single woman of a certain age, she may be envious that Palin has a husband, a family, and has carved out an accomplished political career."
To which the writer adds:
With regard to why Purdum, David Letterman, and other liberal males continually go after Palin, the answer might be as easy as they secretly lust after her while also seeing her as the "girlfriend of the quarterback" they could never get in high school. Seriously, look at the "men" who belittle Palin on a regular basis. For the most part, they fit the description of "the pencil-neck geek" from high school. Are they now trying to make Palin pay for their long-ago inadequacies? Is that why Letterman imagines her now as a "Slutty Flight Attendant?" Because she is his fantasy and rather than admit it, he strikes out at her?
And concludes:
In summary, we know that the left really, really, really hates Palin, that the left-wing media needs Palin to stay in business, that certain liberal female columnists may be envious of her, that certain liberal male reporters and talk-show hosts may lust after her, that the GOP is still populated with disloyal weasels who put self before all, and that Sarah Palin is still standing tall.
Well it all makes sense but given Palin’s beauty, stylishness and sassy attitude why haven’t gay men embraced her as their modern day Julie Newmar? Robert Stacy McCain has the answer here, here, here, and here.
The upshot is that Sarah Palin represents everything the Left hates, fears, lusts after and is envious of. Most of all, they wish they could be her.
Obama's Fiends, Er, I Mean Friends
Having flatly stated that he doesn’t believe in meddling in the affairs of other countries, Obama has pulled a 180 when it comes to the affairs of Honduras. Professor Jacobson:
While Obama improves relations with Venezuela, Obama has cut military ties to Honduras, is considering a cut-off of all aid, is doing nothing to stop loan suspensions by international organizations over which the U.S. has substantial influence, and is supporting international efforts to isolate Honduras.
Poor and tiny Honduras faces the full wrath of the United States, United Nations, and much of the rest of the world, while nothing is done about Iran. On Iran, Obama and the world acted with the utmost deference, and there were no efforts by the Obama administration at international action. None.
The Administration has justified its actions by keeping the word “coup” in play. Edward Luttwak says: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”. By this definition the events in Honduras certainly were not a coup. But Obama is interested in the definition, he uses the word for its emotional impact and the imagery conjured by it.
For those who prefer facts to emotional trickery Fausta's should be the first stop.
Noteworthy reading: Honduras Under The Bus and Obama Allies Rally With Ousted Honduran Leftist Zelaya
While Obama improves relations with Venezuela, Obama has cut military ties to Honduras, is considering a cut-off of all aid, is doing nothing to stop loan suspensions by international organizations over which the U.S. has substantial influence, and is supporting international efforts to isolate Honduras.
Poor and tiny Honduras faces the full wrath of the United States, United Nations, and much of the rest of the world, while nothing is done about Iran. On Iran, Obama and the world acted with the utmost deference, and there were no efforts by the Obama administration at international action. None.
The Administration has justified its actions by keeping the word “coup” in play. Edward Luttwak says: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”. By this definition the events in Honduras certainly were not a coup. But Obama is interested in the definition, he uses the word for its emotional impact and the imagery conjured by it.
For those who prefer facts to emotional trickery Fausta's should be the first stop.
Noteworthy reading: Honduras Under The Bus and Obama Allies Rally With Ousted Honduran Leftist Zelaya
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Let's Hope Inhofe Is Right
Sen. Jim Inhofe is predicting that despite there being a new clown in town Cap and Trade is “dead in the water.” Well we can hope. Everyday more information is coming out about the cost of this legislation to the taxpayers. As Gateway Pundit points out the NRCC has put out a video highlighting in the Democrats own words that this legislation amounts a bit more than the 44 cents a day claim being thrown around by the Administration:
We need to let our senators know in no uncertain terms that if this bill passes there will be a price that they will pay as well. Take Michelle Malkin’s advice:
Killing cap-and-tax won’t happen without massive resistance and persistence. Gird your loins and get on the phone next week.
The phone number is on the video.
We need to let our senators know in no uncertain terms that if this bill passes there will be a price that they will pay as well. Take Michelle Malkin’s advice:
Killing cap-and-tax won’t happen without massive resistance and persistence. Gird your loins and get on the phone next week.
The phone number is on the video.
Can This Home Be Saved?
Over at Reason Tim Cavanaugh discusses the new Mortgage Metrics Report and comes to the conclusion that more often than not mortgage modifications don’t solve delinquency problems:
That is, lenders are increasingly offering supposedly distressed borrowers substantial reductions in principal and interest payments. (See page 25 to see how rapidly these modifications are becoming much more charitable to the borrowers.) Redefault data track how many of these renegotiated loans end up back in trouble. There's a wide variety in types and degrees of trouble — everything from 30 days' tardiness on payments to completed foreclosures.
But one pattern emerges when you add up all the redefaults per quarter and compare them to the total number of loan modifications: When you take deadbeats and give them a free opportunity to get out of contractual obligations they willingly signed before God and country, a fairly reliable majority of them — and often a fillibuster-proof 60+ percent — end up deadbeating again.
As a former loan officer I can tell you that are some very good reasons why loan ‘work outs’ often don’t work out.
First, let’s start with Tim’s use of the word “deadbeat”. Not all people who default on loans are deadbeats. I define a deadbeat as someone who just doesn’t repay debt because that is just their nature. True deadbeats fall in to two main categories. Some people do not repay debt regardless of their ability to pay. It simply isn’t a priority to them even when the debt they are not paying is for the roof over their head. From personal experience I call this type of deadbeat a “Stuff Person.”
The Stuff Person has a nice home and drives a new car. They have the latest Iphone and wear label clothes. Game day the gang meets at their house because they have the huge flat screen TV with all the bells and whistles (Note: I‘m talking about games played on the road, stuff people have season tickets for the home games). They never brown bag their lunch and dinner is at the “IN” restaurant several nights a week. Stuff people pay their electric, water, cable, etc., on the day the service has been scheduled to be turned off. Their mortgage, cars and credit cards are all at the highest interest rates allowed by law because of their credit scores and they pay an NSF charge for almost every check they write. But they have stuff. Sooner or later the cards are maxed out, there’s no equity in the house, and the cars are like two years old. If they can do a refi or a modification they use the breathing room to start spending again. Usually they end up in bankruptcy and foreclosure which they pretty much take in stride.
The second type of deadbeat is the “Dreamer”. The dreamer is the well meaning person who buys the house with an interest only loan for the first year or two and then the payment adjusts to include principal as well. Or maybe the mortgage is an ARM with a low teaser rate. Whatever. The point is, they mean to pay it because they assume that between the time of the purchase and the adjustment some miraculous event will occur and everything will work out. Unlike the Stuff Person who sees financial collapse as an opportunity to start over and get new stuff, the Dreamer becomes angry when they find themselves losing their home or car. The Dreamer thinks it is unfair that everything didn’t just workout and they blame everyone but themselves.
The third category of people who end up in default are not deadbeats at all. They did everything right. They don't buy more house than they could afford. They save. They budget. They don’t buy a new car until the old car is on its last legs. When they lose their job or become ill they call their lender right away. They try to work everything out and when they can’t they are upfront with the bank. Sometimes bad things do happen to good people.
The comments on Cavanaugh’s post were interesting. I could spot which posts were from deadbeats and which were not. I could also spot which posts unfairly labeled everyone as deadbeats whether they deserved it or not.
That is, lenders are increasingly offering supposedly distressed borrowers substantial reductions in principal and interest payments. (See page 25 to see how rapidly these modifications are becoming much more charitable to the borrowers.) Redefault data track how many of these renegotiated loans end up back in trouble. There's a wide variety in types and degrees of trouble — everything from 30 days' tardiness on payments to completed foreclosures.
But one pattern emerges when you add up all the redefaults per quarter and compare them to the total number of loan modifications: When you take deadbeats and give them a free opportunity to get out of contractual obligations they willingly signed before God and country, a fairly reliable majority of them — and often a fillibuster-proof 60+ percent — end up deadbeating again.
As a former loan officer I can tell you that are some very good reasons why loan ‘work outs’ often don’t work out.
First, let’s start with Tim’s use of the word “deadbeat”. Not all people who default on loans are deadbeats. I define a deadbeat as someone who just doesn’t repay debt because that is just their nature. True deadbeats fall in to two main categories. Some people do not repay debt regardless of their ability to pay. It simply isn’t a priority to them even when the debt they are not paying is for the roof over their head. From personal experience I call this type of deadbeat a “Stuff Person.”
The Stuff Person has a nice home and drives a new car. They have the latest Iphone and wear label clothes. Game day the gang meets at their house because they have the huge flat screen TV with all the bells and whistles (Note: I‘m talking about games played on the road, stuff people have season tickets for the home games). They never brown bag their lunch and dinner is at the “IN” restaurant several nights a week. Stuff people pay their electric, water, cable, etc., on the day the service has been scheduled to be turned off. Their mortgage, cars and credit cards are all at the highest interest rates allowed by law because of their credit scores and they pay an NSF charge for almost every check they write. But they have stuff. Sooner or later the cards are maxed out, there’s no equity in the house, and the cars are like two years old. If they can do a refi or a modification they use the breathing room to start spending again. Usually they end up in bankruptcy and foreclosure which they pretty much take in stride.
The second type of deadbeat is the “Dreamer”. The dreamer is the well meaning person who buys the house with an interest only loan for the first year or two and then the payment adjusts to include principal as well. Or maybe the mortgage is an ARM with a low teaser rate. Whatever. The point is, they mean to pay it because they assume that between the time of the purchase and the adjustment some miraculous event will occur and everything will work out. Unlike the Stuff Person who sees financial collapse as an opportunity to start over and get new stuff, the Dreamer becomes angry when they find themselves losing their home or car. The Dreamer thinks it is unfair that everything didn’t just workout and they blame everyone but themselves.
The third category of people who end up in default are not deadbeats at all. They did everything right. They don't buy more house than they could afford. They save. They budget. They don’t buy a new car until the old car is on its last legs. When they lose their job or become ill they call their lender right away. They try to work everything out and when they can’t they are upfront with the bank. Sometimes bad things do happen to good people.
The comments on Cavanaugh’s post were interesting. I could spot which posts were from deadbeats and which were not. I could also spot which posts unfairly labeled everyone as deadbeats whether they deserved it or not.
Party Politics Above Duty
Via Don Surber:
In case anyone ever asks you to define ‘partisanship’ or ‘crap weasel’ show them this:
No further comment necessary.
In case anyone ever asks you to define ‘partisanship’ or ‘crap weasel’ show them this:
No further comment necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)