Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Growing All Nostalgic For Bush

The Christmas day terrorist attack on the Delta Airliner headed for a Detroit landing from Amsterdam, and the administration's response and reaction, has me feeling all nostalgic for former president George W. Bush. President Obama waited  72 hours before interrupting his golf game and Hawaiian vacation to make a statement regarding the attack. I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with marching out Janet Napolitano, or as Mark Steyn calls her, "Incompetano," and Robert Gibbs, to downplay the incident and try to reassure the public by stating,  in Napolitano's words, "The system worked," which after criticism was retracted. In president Obama's statement he said, "a passenger allegedly," and called him "the suspect," and through verbal torture seemed unwilling to call him a terrorist. The word "incident" kept popping up instead of terrorist attack. Just as the Fort Hood "terrorist attack" was downplayed and described as a "lone wolf incident," the same seems to be taking place here. 

There seems to be a clear attempt to change the  whole definition of a war on terror to a law enforcement endeavor. His word "allegedly," implies the obvious lawyer like verbiage used in criminal cases rather than the clear spoken pronouncements of former president Bush's terrorism fight. The fact that the "alleged Suspect" was given Miranda rights, and is already lawyered up, is in sharp contrast to Bush's military tribunal approach, that would have resulted in an intense interrogation. Even though the"suspect" has already bragged to the FBI that more attacks are on the way, he of course cannot be "enhanced" to divulge any information he has because of Miranda protection, and the fifth amendment. Those protections reserved for US citizens and foreigners accused of crimes in this country, and not for enemy combatants. 

This obvious 180 degree turn by the Obama administration, which seems to the average American an attempt to protect the rights of terrorists, excuse me, "suspects," over the safety of Americans, is troubling, and gives the Jihadist a strategic advantage. They are obviously aware of the new policy, and can at will, when caught, spout any terrifying announcements of future attacks, without being "enhanced" to elaborate. Does this new approach make Americans feel at ease when boarding an airplane? Of course they're so glad that we are living our values, and extending them to the terrorists, excuse me, "suspects," that any thought of a calamitous flight flees the mind of the grateful traveler, thankful that the new administration is changing our image world wide. Of course the administration doesn't have to fly commercial, and go through the new absurd and time consuming screenings that the average American must now endure. Which brings me to my next point.

As a result of this "incident," the TSA has announced that no one can leave their seats within one hour of landing, and must keep their hands visible during that time. Excuse me. Are they admitting that there may be an explosive device already on board, and they're just trying to stop it's detonation. Wow, that's going to make frequent flyers feel safe. Now back to the screening procedures. It seems rather than profiling an obvious Muslim extremist, who bought a one way ticket to America with cash, and checked no luggage, whose own father warned the US embassy in Nigeria about his son's radicalism, and was on a terrorist watch list, we're now going to profile the underwear of all airline travelers. Just like the shoe bomber caused all of us to remove our shoes, the new pantie bomber is going to cause all of us to undergo full body ex-ray screening. The reason for this political correctness gone wild, which is equivalent to a girls gone wild video for the TSA employee, is of course to nip in the bud any race or religious profiling that could possibly offend the sensitivity of either group. So we're going to inconvenience and embarrass all air travelers, as well as leave them feeling vulnerable, because we want to treat the terrorist, excuse me "suspect," with kindness and constitutional rights. 

In conclusion, just as Peter King pronounced on the Today Show, these terrorist attacks, excuse me "incidents," need to be taken from the federal court system and placed directly in military tribunals where the terrorists, excuse me, "suspects," may get their heads a little wet in the pursuit of life saving information. Which do you prefer as an American concerned about the safety of your fellow countrymen? The new administrations approach of Miranda rights for terrorists, excuse me, "alleged suspects," that give all concerned that joy joy feeling of living our values, and having everyone like us, or former president Bush's approach of military tribunals, secret CIA prisons, rendition, and enhanced interrogation, that puts terror in the heart of the terrorist, and a feeling that our government is looking out for our safety? I for one, am growing all nostalgic for W.
Read: Sarah Palin Is Changing Minds...at...: Con-men4Palin

Thursday, December 24, 2009

The Nightmare Before Christmas?

The new senate health care billed just past this Christmas eve, has violated the original intent of the health care debate. As we all remember the whole concept of a public option was to, in the words of the political elite, "bring greater competition to the private insurance industry." Most people understood this was a ruse, and an attempt to start us down the road to a single payer system, and would have resulted in driving many insurers out of business. The public option was ultimately rejected, but this bill still goes a long way in driving many small group and individual markets out of business, by requiring  that after a company has surpassed 10% of its revenues on administrative expenses, it has to begin rebating back to its customers, determined by state regulators under the control of the secretary of Health And Human Services. Richard Epstein in his enlightening article in the WSJ explains in detail this process.

This as Mr. Epstein states, " turns the health insurance industry into a public utility." Why does the government control public utilities? It's a simple matter of regulating monopolies. Any industry that has complete control over  electricity, or any other energy source cannot and should not control who gets the source and how much they should have to pay. All that is regulated by governmental panels, that make judgments in the best interest of the public, but still provide enough profit for the provider to stay in business. Most areas of the country do not have a choice between  utility companies, and therefore control is needed.  

The health insurance industry is not a monopoly. But as best as I can determine from the Reid bill, it will regulate it as if it were one. This is obviously going to bankrupt many insurers, and lead ultimately to higher rates, as competition is lessened. The larger insurers will thrive, as the mandate to buy insurance will swell their rolls, and the smaller group and individual insurers will fall by the way side. Talk about unintended consequences. This seems to be the exact opposite of the original intent of the whole health care debate. But, isn't that what we've come to expect from government involvement in the free market system.

The ironic twist here is not unlike the governments involvement in the financial bailouts. The large firms were bailed out because they were deemed, "too large to fail," while the smaller local banks and financial institutions were left to twist in the wind. Now, we once again see those huge financial institutions making enormous profits, and passing out obscene bonuses. Of course this is not a bailout of large health care insurers, but the results will ultimately be the same. Is there any other reason why the insurance industries stocks have skyrocketed the closer this bill gets to becoming law? The small minded and power grabbing congress has essentially decided that they're going to take control over 1/6 of the US economy, and they are unconcerned about the unintended consequences of their actions.

Greater competition could have been achieved by simply passing laws that allowed purchasing insurance across state lines, and opening up the market place to hundreds of new options. But, of course the elites wouldn't want free market capitalism to solve the very problems they instinctively believe only they can solve. That of course would lessen their importance, as well as control over the lives of all their subjects. There is only one silver lining, and Mr. Epstein explains that in his article. This should not pass constitutional muster. As of yet, I don't think the legislative and executive branch have control over the judicial branch. But, I'm sure they're working on it in some back room someplace in the town we used to call the arbiter of freedom for all the world, but now has become a hell hole, a fascist paradigm, a stinking cancer. The Name sake of that once glorious town, George Washington, used to spend his Christmas's Fighting for our freedom and crossing freezing, raging rivers, while the new inhabitants spend their Christmas passing a law in secret, they hope will ultimately control our lives, and the lives of our children for generations to come.
Check out my other blog...Con-Men4Palin

Monday, December 21, 2009

Enough Shame To Go Around!

I read Michael Goodwind's column today in the New York Post and wondered to myself who is he trying to kid. His assertions that he voted for Obama because he felt he was the best choice available, and now he regards his campaign as a sly bait and switch, are nonsensical and ridiculous. I have no empathy for those who thought they were getting something that turned out be the real Barack Obama.  The excuse, they were deceived, is about as lame as the complaining serial cheater who doesn't see the character of the two a.m. bar girl until rolling over the following morning and staring into her face with regret. The monumental intoxication that leads to accepting with blurry eyes, something that turns into a four year fatal attraction is nobody's fault but the  hungry for love cheater, who doesn't discriminate his newest attraction.

It's true Michael Goodwin was not the only love starved high ball drinker, because millions of Americans, some moderate and some conservative, fell into the drunken trance that is now resulting in the remaking of America into a sloven couch potato where once a high energy athlete conquered foes and won the hearts of all the girls. This decline of freedom and the American way, is being presided over, not by a deceptive and clever magician who hid the monuments of his liberal construct, like a David Copperfield master illusion, but a political prodigy that was fairly upfront about his plans for America. 

Let's all remember, he told Joe the Plumber he thought it was a good idea to spread the wealth around. He endorsed cap and trade long before his election, and the Copenhagen debacle. When Charles Gibson remarked that lowering capital gains taxes, increases tax revenues, his response was it is still fair to take from the rich. His idea of health care reform was one of endorsing a single payer system, and he talked at length about that to union audiences. His vitriol toward corporate America and the free enterprise system was apparent in many of his early speeches and writings. His radical association, which the Limbaughs and Hannitys tried to warn us about, have now become the rule rather than the exception in the non senate confirmation posts of czars and confidants. Even Sarah Palin wanted to rat them out, but was nixed by the McCain campaign.

It is evident the mainstream media is still rolling over to see the face of the two a.m. bar girl and still liking what it sees, because their intoxication is non-stop. Their liberal alcoholism is a self inflicted condition, that ruins the lives of all they report to, and engenders favor  from the political elites. Many moderates and conservatives bought into the nonpartisan, and nonracial rhetoric that was just that. Rhetoric. But, they ignored all the warnings from those who actually took the time to investigate this political prodigy to find out exactly what was behind the articulate mask. Maybe they felt if they were too discriminating, they'd be labeled as racists. But, discriminating a man's policy positions in the fight for constitutional freedoms is anything but, and should be heralded as patriotic. When Americans fear that opposing someone's politics because of their race, is foolish, they've given new meaning to the word. And fools suffer fools, and so on and so on. Michael Goodwin made one very good confession, and confession is good for the soul. He said, even though he erroneously named Obama's campaign a bait and switch, "I voted for him, and shame on me." Well, I would like to echo that sentiment to all that now have buyers remorse. Shame on you. you can't blame Barack Obama for being who he always was.
Check out my new blog post: WHAT'S NEXT FOR SARAH?...at...CON-MEN4PALIN

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Copenhagen: The New Flat Earth Society!

As Copenhagen heats up faster than Al Gores scenario for arctic ice, a new unsettling dynamic is taking hold of our kids. As a child growing up in the late fifties and sixties, I remember well the school house air raid drills. We jumped under desks and stood in door ways to avoid the unavoidable fallout from a soviet air strike, with that deafening sound of sirens blaring in the back ground. Movies like "On The Beach," that my family watched in terror as the world was systematically wipe out by nuclear winter, became the narrative. Children were told in winter time play, don't eat the snow there may be radioactive fallout in it, blown in from soviet nuclear tests.

The New dynamic that is terrifying kids and leaving them with a feeling of hopelessness is the apocalyptic pronouncements coming to us from the Copenhagen crowd. They're taught by environmental high priests and priestesses daily in the class room of their effect on a dying planet, whose imminent demise can be directly attributed to their life style and standard of living, which fills them with guilt, and worthlessness. How many of us have asked the wide eyed college student what their major is, and heard the reply, "environmental science?" How many have been told by a son or daughter, "why should I do my homework, the ice is all melting and we're all going to drown in ten years?" There seems to be a pervasive feeling among the youth today that progress is regressive, and growth and development is diabolical. When a child is told their exhaling of carbon dioxide is harming this, "so called," delicate and fragile planet, is there any wonder kids are having esteem problems. Their very existence is being questioned as a danger to the earth.

The protest signs at Copenhagen that show clocks ticking down to ten minutes before midnight, and demonstration of a dying planet needing CPR, sends a message to our children, that this globe we reside on is somehow superior  to it's citizens. The one thing this narrative does is remove from the consciousness of children their place in God's plan. They're taught to serve and protect a planet, rather than God and their fellow man. Progress and development that makes life easier and healthier for everyone, is shunned for a religious zealotry of a divine planet.

Now, I understand that the climate change cabal, says their intention is to ultimately save man from imminent destruction, but is that really their intention? They claim that deniers of man made global warming are like flat earthers. Recently, Al Gore claimed that global warming was as sure as gravity. Hmmm, I didn't know the law of gravity had changed over time as the temperature has. The flat earthers warned of sailing into the horizon for fear of falling off the earth, just as today's environmentalists warn of excessive travel and burning of fossil fuels is the path to our  destruction. Now let me ask you, who are the flat earthers? Those wanting to restrict and stop progress, through fear and intimidation, or those set on improving man's standard of living. Since when does unsubstantiated fear tactics make scientific or moral sense?

Why should we listen to those who  would limit our horizons and progress, and push a doomsday scenario, if we don't give them control over our energy consumption? No one is against   renewable energy, and the market place and  entrepreneurs will eventually bring them to us. But, until a viable alternative is available and cost efficient, why should we limit ourselves in the name of mother earth. The old soviet union wanted to limit their subjects mobility as a way to control their populous, just as today climate priests preach smart cars and bicycles while they fly to Copenhagen on private jets and rove about in limousine escorts.

There's an arrogance here that assumes the earths history of constant and repeated climate change is meaningless, because the climate we have now is the ideal, and any change would be catastrophic. Notice that since the temperatures have stopped climbing over the last decade, that global warming has been replaced with climate change. That to me signals that if a ten to twenty year cycle of reduced temperature occurs the "climate change crowd" would still be propagating a doomsday scenario. In Fact, in 1975 Newsweek magazine ran an article about global cooling and it's consequences. So it doesn't matter what the trend is, the alarmists are going to turn it into a coming apocolypse.. 

Why? Because they want the resources and the control. They want government to be in charge of energy consumption and development. They want to be pulling the strings and pushing the buttons. They want your standard of living lower, and your mobility restricted. They know when individuals become self dependent and successful, their control over them recedes, just like Al Gore's ice caps. They know just like any primitive  culture can be controlled through superstition, or should we say, "junk science," and fear, by propagating climate change, they gain control. If that's true, they can smack down wall street, anesthesize main street, and continue their limousine ride down easy street. Let's rise above that primitive culture, that acts out of fear from flat earth propagators,  and let's give our kids hope and a reason to succeed.

{ if you'd like to watch an amusing video on saving the planet click here...Caution: Adult language}

Check out my other Blog...Con-Men4Palin


Saturday, December 12, 2009

No Recession In Washington D.C.

While most Americans are trolling for bargain price Christmas presents, many federal employees are doing their holiday shopping at designer boutiques. Federal employees making $100.000 or more has jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the first 18 months of the recession. Civilian employees at the defense department earning $150,000 or more has increased from 1,868 in December 2007, to 10,100 in June 2009. It seems the federal employee is exempt from the fallout of a nation wide economic slow down. The congressional leadership is content hiring more and paying more for public service work, while this president and his pay czar continue to limit executive pay in the private sector at firms that received bailout money. If I'm not mistaken all federal employees are paid through federal receipts directly from the tax paying public.

Here's something that proves the gall of federal hiring and compensation. At the start of the recession the transportation department only had one employee earning a salary of $170,000 or more. 18 months later 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000. The growth in federal employee pay has pushed the average federal workers salary to $71,206, while the average private sector worker earns $41,331. The growth of federal hiring as well as compensation do not compute with an economic slow down that has many private sector workers struggling to make ends meet. You would think in an era of exploding budget deficits and declining tax receipts, that fed hiring and compensation would be first on the chopping block. Not so in the new era of government. Washington DC is a flush with designer suits and Italian loafers darting in and out of traffic. limousines linger, waiting to transport blackberry listening bureaucrats, to luncheon dates and meetings with other fortunate sons of Washington elites.

As a continuing sucking sound of taxpayer money from flyover country settles auspiciously over the Potomac, the civil servant lives a life of privilege and accommodation, while the real public servant, the single mom working two jobs and spending her nights worrying about tomorrows bills lives in anxiety, and trepidation. While the construction worker watches his livelihood smothered because of policies attributed directly to Washington luminaries, endangering his very existence, the elites attend their Georgetown cocktail parties, and laugh, as they wonder how the other half lives.

Those in government live for the invite to those famous Obama White House parties, where they're served $100.00 a pound imported Japanese steak, and drink vodka martinis, while listening to Earth Wind and Fire, or Stevie Wonder. The supporters of this avarice spend evenings helping their children with homework or watching their basketball games and wrestling matches, packing snacks instead of eating out.

What has happened to cause such a disconnect of these bureaucratic privileged from the average American? Why are we allowing this to continue? When will we stop the excess and madness? If you think this is bad now, just wait and see what will happen if Obama care is signed into law. Right now the third highest employer in the world is Great Britain
's public run health care system. They are third only to the Chinese Army and India's railroad. Great Britain has a population of 61 million. What would the hiring practices be of a government run health system serving over 300 million people. Critical mass will be reached, to the point that federal employment or those who benefit directly from federal largess start to crowd out the private sector. Soon you run into a point of no return, where voters vote only their own best interest, and government to them becomes just that.

We are living the very nightmare the founders warned of. Government becoming too large and too arrogant to understand their place as servants to the public. Remember, that the egalitarian utopia preached by the new elites, was talked about in that classic George Orwell book, "Animal Farm." Remember the quote, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Monday, December 7, 2009

Will Sarah Lead The Tea Party Movement?

As the mainstream media continues to belittle and besmirch the Tea Party movement, a new Rasmussen poll shows a generic Tea party congressional candidate would finish second behind a generic democrat and ahead of a generic Republican. This sounds like trouble for the GOP. It could very well be troublesome, but if I were a democrat I would also be troubled. When Democrats are only polling 36% in a generic ballot, with the Tea Party polling 23% and Republicans 18% I'd be reaching for an oxygen mask, and defibrillators, considering the possibility that if there is only a choice between Democrats and Republicans, most of those Tea Party supporters are going GOP.

This of course doesn't mean the GOP shouldn't be reexamining their national strategy for 2010 and beyond. It's fairly clear that Tea Party supporters are saying loud and clear, "a pox on both your houses." There is a common sense conservative movement that has had it with a democrat lite approach from the GOP hierarchy, and is poised to enforce their will on a party that is unresponsive to the will of the people. George Bush's compassionate conservatism was simply code for more spending. The Bush years were filled with bloated spending, including a medicare prescription drug entitlement, and increased federal spending on education, and almost every domestic policy, along with an immigration policy that met it's doom with the in utero beginnings of the tea party resistance. The TARP bill and the auto company bailouts before Bush left office were the camel back breaking straws for those who believe in federal budget discipline and free market capitalism. For all the good George Bush did in fighting terrorism, his domestic spending priorities were far over the top, and angered fiscal conservatives beyond repair. And, of course most of the GOP congressional leadership went along with all that spending.

The GOP has revived itself somewhat in opposing the Obama agenda which has made the Bush years look like amateur hour in Washington, as far as out of control spending is concerned. That doesn't mean the Tea Party folks are easily forgetting the spending of the Bush years. The Tea Party movement has shown that whether you're a Democrat or Republican, career politicians, have demonstrated that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, once in power the temptation to buy votes by overspending is a bipartisan problem that leads to corruption and an elitism that the Tea Party movement abhors. Therefore the Tea Party contingent doesn't want to return to the Republican spending trend, but would rather see a common sense conservative approach to government, that demands fiscal discipline as well as free market solutions.

The Tea party movement lacks one thing, and that is a leader who can galvanize both common sense conservative republicans as well as moderate democrats and disenfranchised independents that are tired of buying into the two party monopoly, that blurs the choices to the American voter. Who could that be. Could it be Newt? I don't think so. His party loyalty to Dede Scozzafava in New York 23 put him soundly in the GOP hierarchy camp. Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and John Thune are loyal Republicans that won't buck the party. Mike Huckabee, although lovable and likable doesn't have the star quality. That leaves only one person. Sarah Palin, who has been trashed by Republican bigwigs and party apparatchiks. She is the only one with the political clout, and ground swell of support that can lead the Tea Party movement.

She has stated time and again that she's a two party believer, and sees a third party as a formula for disaster. But, with 23% of the electorate behind the Tea Party, the GOP will have to listen, especially when they're only polling 18%, and 73% of the GOP says the leadership has lost touch with their base. It's time for a shakeup, and there only seems to be one individual, and one movement that is poised to make the GOP stand up and take notice. Even if she decides to sit on the sidelines she will be a power broker and king maker. The hierarchy of the Grand Old Party is going to have to swallow hard, put on their sunglasses and look straight into the Aurora Borealis, and accept Alaska's answer to electoral victory. SARAH PALIN!

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Sarah Syrah

I just took a week vacation and read Sarah Palin's book, "Going Rogue" the first few days. It was an excellent read, and I couldn't seem to put it down. Her life story is compelling and about as all American as can be. She went a long way in correcting the record of the 2008 campaign, and how the media, for obvious reasons tried to completely miss-characterize her. It's sometimes overstated when people accuse the media of a conspiracy to destroy someone, but in her case it isn't overstated at all. It's obvious that the press, which could be better described as a wine press with their constant squeezing and remaking of everything Sarah, have a visceral hatred of her and what she represents. The media's incessant reporting of her wardrobe costs, her daughters pregnancy, and many other unsubstantiated attacks during the campaign was an attempt to characterize her as a hypocrite, who tried to present herself as someone she wasn't. It was obvious they were attacking what they knew was her strength.

Sarah Palin to me, is an American hero, who not only represent a conservative agenda that would benefit the entire country, but she lives every bit of it. The phrase, "what you see, is what you get," is the most admirable way to describe her. It's a clear delineation from your standard politician who position themselves as someone they wished they were, but obviously are not. Her admission that the closet skeleton she feared the most, was a D she received in one of her college classes, was classic Sarah. I'm sure the media doesn't accept that, but maybe that's because they've never had an innocent bone in their body. I found that refreshing and believable.

Someone who can go through the most vicious and nonstop attacks that has ever been leveled on a politician, and retain her character without bitterness and self pity should be admired, and emulated. The problem is, character can't be emulated. Character is something formed from a lifetime of right, rather than expedient decisions. Reading her book gives an insight into the making of that character. Her personal journey resulting in the decision to bring her Downs syndrome baby to term was nothing less than inspiring. It's easy to say you're pro-life, until confronted with the birth of a Downs baby. It also would have been easy for her to counsel her daughter to abort her child, but easy is not Sarah's way.

Her journey up the ladder from counsel woman to mayor and ultimately governor was a justification for the concept of citizen legislator which long ago was replaced by career politician until a bad campaign turns them into a millionaire lobbyist. Her ability to juggle career, kids and family business should be hailed by feminists everywhere, but once again for obvious reasons attract scorn from the same. The media's credibility is on the line when they claim she's an unintelligent neophyte even though she made a career hardball heavy weight Frank Murkowski cry uncle, and Exxon Mobile relent.

The next two years will determine who will win the battle between this Alaskan alien, and the well funded arrogant elitist media moguls. I have a word of advice for the self appointed wine press. All your distortions and vitriol might just backfire. Be careful, all your violent squeezing may produce a world class vintage. On second thought it may be aged enough by 2012. A petite Syrah with a bold fresh nose with hints of strength and character, and a refined finish that settles softly on the palate. Sarah Syrah, a common sense wine served best with moose stew, at an Iowa barbecue.


Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Sarah's Showing Her Stuff

Sarah Palin is showing during her media blitz she's not what the main stream media has tried to make her out to be. She's not Caribou Barbie. She's not an unintelligent hick Alaskan. She's a confident and outspoken critic of this administration's agenda. I listened to her interview with Rush on Tuesday, and she articulated common sense responses to what the hand ringers would call complex and nuanced problems. And that's where the rub may be. They say she's simplifying complex problems. Joe Biden has said, "addressing environmental issues is more complicated than just drilling." Palin's response was, "It's not complicated, it's political," and "what is complicated about tapping into safe supplies of oil?"

Her contention is, if I can extrapolate from what she said, is that the democrat party is obviously under the thumb of extreme environmentalists, that have veto power over every energy extracting policy, just as they're under the thumb, or should I say fist, of the the unions, especially SEIU when it comes to economic policy. SEIU's president has been the most frequent visitor to the White House since Obama was inaugurated. Sarah certainly has substantial credibility when it comes to energy policy as ex- governor of the major energy producing state in the union, along with her history of taking on the oil lobby there.

Her approach to the economy, again takes on a common sense approach. Let's do what Reagan did when he was confronted with a worse recession in the 80's than we face now. Cut taxes and free up the private sector to create jobs and fuel the economic engine that doubled revenues to the federal budget in less than 8 years. What a novel idea. Do something that has proven to work, rather than something that has failed every time it was tried. That doesn't seem to be too complex to me. Of course we all understand that the anointed one and the democrats are not all about creating wealth, but redistributing it, even if it ultimately results in astronomical deficits, by killing jobs and shrinking the tax base.

We could go on and on, but the bottom line is, the left wants you to perceive her as unintelligent and unsophisticated. She's not ready for prime time. These issues are too complex and nuanced for an average American to dissect, thus leaving the policy decisions to only the Ivy League elites, that will solve problems through engorged brain cell activation, and nuanced articulation, coupled with decision making procrastination.

The next question is, why do they want to destroy her? That's an easy one. She represents what all liberals fear. A popular, attractive, conservative, pro life woman that lives what she believes. She's a serious threat to their power base. Prominent women must be liberal and pro choice, or destroyed. Remember Clarence Thomas struggled under the same dynamic. We can't have a prominent black conservative appointed to the supreme court. Our template for what a black should do and say will not allow it. How about Miguel Estrada? Another minority that must be destroyed because he didn't tow the company line. They will use lies, distortions, disgruntled co-workers, vindictive almost son in laws, (aka Levi Johnston,) and every trick in the book to not just stop, but completely destroy, anyone who existentially threatens their political fiefdoms.

And of course they are never accused of sexism, bigotry or racism for destroying women, or minorities in their efforts to stereotype every conceivable group in America. But, of course they will accuse others of all those indictments if one of their own is criticized on policy issues. Thankfully Sarah Palin doesn't look at Americans as part of a group or faction, but she looks at them as Americans, with the freedom to pursue their happiness and success without the oppressive hand of government bearing down on them. Oops, did I just suggest she has simplified another complex problem? You Betcha!


Friday, November 13, 2009

Sarah Palin's Appeal To The Conservative Man

As the release of Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue" approaches, the media swirl around the event seems to dwarf Dorothy and Toto's Kansas tornado. As media organizations are drooling, and green with envy at those who've secured interviews and appearances, the ones that have are promoting their coup nonstop. Excerpts from the book are now being dribbled out and the frenzy to take a peek at this precocious politician's pronouncements is palpable. Let's examine for a moment the clear intrigue from one particular group and its perceived attraction to the new Alaskan phenomenon.

CONSERVATIVE MEN: We will abbreviate this group as "Con-men for Palin." This group appears to be one of the most intense in their support. First, lets get the obligatory personal appearance out of the way. Not only is Sarah Palin attractive, those glasses give her that air of intelligence that many men find unnerving in a secretarial fantasy sort of way. She's pretty, personable and petite. What man isn't attracted to that, unless you're an estrogen driven liberal male feminist, of the Alan Alda type, or a Barney Frank who desires muscles coupled with submission.

Her image of picking fish out of nets while wearing waders and smiling, of course appeals to that middle American male who has forever wanted their wives to get down and dirty with them on their weekend testosterone filled fishing and hunting trips. Her correcting of Joe Biden's "drill, drill, drill," phrase in the debate, to No Joe, "It's Drill Baby Drill," sends electricity up the leg of hard working men, the same as Chris Matthews messiah induced leg thrill. Her ability to make a delicious moose stew filled with rib sticking protein laden man food after shooting and dressing it, secures kudos from the Grizzly Adam's type.

And of course her common sense approach to work and family appeals to the con-man's tradition of working and loving your family hard. Sarah's desire to see government work for the people, and not the other way around gets the fiscal conservative and small government man feeling hugged rather than squeezed. Her understanding that energy independence and the will to attack it with the "all the above approach," including domestic drilling, will free us from the dress wearing, terrorist funding, turban types.

Sarah's folksy and down home way, along with her political incorrect way of saying it is a breathe of fresh air from the current Cabal of cautious caretakers, who by trying not to offend anybody offend almost everybody. Her ability to be a career woman while still being a loving and responsible wife and mother, who chose to bring her down syndrome child to term, shows the con-man strength of character.

Her support of our troops, and the idea of victory, as well as her understanding of what terrorism is, contrast greatly from the squishy and incoherent path the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. espouses. Conservative males, many who have served in the military, know she has a son serving and therefore feel a special connection to her in all things war related. Pictures of her eating with the troops are compelling and show a sense of camaraderie and ease with fighting men and women.

Last, the con-man is repelled by the hubris displayed by the current elites in Washington, and look for that common sense approach to difficult problems, rather than Ivy League taught mumble jumble, that simply seems to mesmerize rather than maximize the talent this country has to bring us out of the funk we're in. Sarah's a reformer who'll tackle problems head on as she did in Alaska, rather then holding summits and enacting commissions. Sarah's way is the conservative man's way. She can amazingly blend a tough no nonsense approach to problem solving with the femininity and appeal that doesn't threaten the conservative man. The only question is, will she threaten the con-man's better half?

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Are these the Changes America Believes In?

Here are just a few of the changes the country is experiencing since the election of Barack Obama. Read them and the associated articles and determine for yourself if this is the change you can believe in!

Making the phrases spending billions and spending trillions interchangeable!

The zeros behind the national debt are no longer counted!

Monopoly money has replaced the American dollar

Terrorism removed from our lexicon for man-caused disasters!

A terrorist attack described as road rage!

the glide to racial harmony sidetracked by this presidents commentary about the Gates affair!

Critics of the president called racists

Protesters formerly described as the highest form of patriot now being called Tea Baggers, and Nazis!

Partisanship evolving into hyper partisanship!

Bipartisanship more apparent in opposing legislation that congress continues to pass!

Free market capitalism changed into European style socialism!

Wealth creation attacked and turned into wealth redistribution!

Politicians running banks, car and insurance companies,

A news organization attacked for doing it's job

Other news organizations evolving from democracies watchdog, to the administration's lapdog!

Those same news organizations wanting bailouts from the people they're supposed to be antagonistic toward!

Socialist leaders and tyrants praising the leader of the free world

Our longtime allies criticizing the leader of the free world

All our enemies are loving us!

All our Friends are questioning us!

Chicago style politics is now more popular than Chicago style pizza!

Common sense being replaced with arrogant elitism!

Private jet
travel only allowed for legislators and bureaucrats!

Vegas vacations are for political fundraisers only!


Monday, November 9, 2009

Assigning Motive is a Subjective Game

The other day President Obama stated, "We cannot fully Know what led Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to kill 13 people and wound 38 others at Fort Hood Texas Thursday." We can't? Well, it seems pretty clear to most Americans exactly what led this Islamic Major to do exactly what he did. Apparently he considered the U.S. armed forces, enemies of Islam. He posted on the internet that Muslim suicide bombings were justified. Those two facts alone should give every common sense American reason to believe this was without a doubt a terrorist act, with Islamic extremist implications. But maybe I'm wrong.

In July our articulate and oh so smart president seemed perfectly capable of assigning motive in the arrest of his friend Henry Louis Gates by a White Cambridge police officer, even though he admitted he didn't know all the facts. Remember he said, that he didn't know what part race had to play in the arrest, implying that it played some part, and stated the Cambridge police acted stupidly. And, if he'd taken the time to investigate he'd have learned that sergeant Crowley was an exemplary officer, who actual had taught race sensitivity training, and given CPR to a black athlete at a Boston Celtics game. He then went on to muse about the history of black persecution by White America.

I'm confused why he didn't mention the history of Islamic extremism when commenting about the Fort Hood incident, and the cowardly acts of suicide bombing and murder of innocents all around the world. Seems that would be just as relevant if not more so, than the White racism he condemned, without knowing the facts, in the Gates affair. But, what do I know? He's the president, and is obviously more capable of assuming motive, than I. Hmmm.

I'm confused about another thing, which I'm sure can be attributed to my lack of knowledge and understanding, that our president most assuredly has. Why does his administration and cronies want to take terrorism or terrorist acts out of our lexicon, and define an act of terrorism as a man-caused disaster? But, at the same time his friends and allies assigned racism as the motive for critics of his domestic agenda. He must be really intelligent to make such a distinction. This obviously is far above my pay grade. Gee, I heard that phrase somewhere before.

I just had an epiphany. I think it was those twenty years of sitting in front of the most eloquent Rev Wright that taught him how to assign motive and blame about race relations. After all he said he would be the post racial president. I'm sure his relationship with ACORN, and his redistribution policies have a lot to do with correcting those injustices. And, I'm sure it was those years at Harvard and Yale Law that gave him the understanding about Islamic extremist and their plight. How they've been persecuted by Jews and the West for years. That's probably why he's doing everything to not offend or agitate them in any way. That must be why he's dictating to that pesky Israel, to stop their settlements, and watch their step when dealing with these downtrodden, and every right to be angry, makers of man-caused disasters.

I'm so glad we elected a president who has the intellect and wisdom to assign or not assign motives in all the important incidents of the day. I'm sure his efforts won't exacerbate racism, or embolden makers of man-caused disasters to make more man-caused disasters. He's too smart to let that happen, and most Americans have too much COMMON, and that's the problem, it's COMMON sense, not Rev. Wright and elite Ivy League educated sense, to think like his highly evolved and superior mind does. All hail!


Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Redistribution of Wealth Goes Global

We all remember when Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Well he is making good on his word. Redistribution policies are in vogue in Washington. The wealth of America is being returned to its rightful owners according to this administration. But did we consider China as one of the rightful owners?

As our debt continues to grow, and this administration projects 1 trillion dollar deficits through 2019, do most Americans understand that 40 cents out of every dollar tax payers send the federal government goes to service that debt? Yes, you heard it right, 40 cents of every dollar simple pays the interest on our collective debt. 40 cents that can't be used to improve our infrastructure, or increase our defenses, or pay entitlements like social security and medicare. Who holds our debt? Well according to statistics from the federal government China is buying approximately half of all new debt. Much of America's treasure is going to the Communist Chinese government, that enslaves it's citizens through political purging, torture and imprisonment.

Many that have gotten into credit card trouble understand the predicament of servicing a debt that eats a larger and larger percentage of their income. With more foreign countries buying our debt, a greater percentage of Americans hard earn tax dollars are being wired to foreign governments world wide.

Another global redistribution policy of this administration and democrats in congress is the cap and trade legislation passed through the house and now under debate in the senate. The huge unilateral taxes and fees on American companies and individuals will not be reciprocated from the two biggest polluters China, and India. So once again Americans will be footing the bill for environmental cleanup, propagated by junk science and ideological nut cases here in America, and around the world. The ever giving taxpayer takes it in the shorts once again.

How about the huge transfer of wealth from this country to terrorist sponsoring states in the Middle East because the messiah and congress refuse to allow off shore drilling and exploration and extraction of the billions and billions of barrels of crude oil and natural gas at our fingertips. And this president has the audacity to transfer ten billion dollars to Brazil for exploration off their coast, at the behest of that generous democrat donor, George Soros.

Was this the change you can believe in? The next time you find it hard to make ends meet, or you can't buy that new pair of shoes or sports equipment for a deserving son or daughter, think about the waste and redistribution of your hard earned tax dollars, and dare to get mad. Call a congressman or senator. Voice your complaints, about this global redistribution. Rise up with people in your own neighborhood and community. Start a grass roots movement to inform Washington you are not the world's provider. America is a generous and giving land, but if was never intended to be the clearing house for governments world wide. Do you want your president to protect the hard earned dollars of it's citizens, or be re distributor of America's treasure? Right now it seems the later is his goal.

Change is Coming!

It's becoming increasingly clear that many Americans that voted for Barack Obama one year ago, completely misunderstood the change he was pushing. Lofty rhetoric like "no more blue state and red state, conservative state and liberal state but only the United States," resonated with the majority of Americans. Post partisan and post racial were attractive magnets to draw in even the suspicious voter, who were somewhat troubled by his liberal leanings. He talked about the process being too divisive with not enough transparency. Eloquent enumerations that suggested an America working together to tackle the tough issues of the day. Putting behind forever the racial divide with the historic election of the first African American president. Essentially, most attracted to his presidency assumed the change was about process and tone, as well as historic.

His policy rhetoric was actually in many ways to the right of John McCain. He promised no tax increases for 95% of Americans, and many would receive tax cuts. He said he'd be a fiscal hawk, scouring the budgets line by line to remove waste and inefficiencies. No more earmarks. He excoriated McCain for suggesting taxing employer health benefits. Lobbyist would be persona non grata at his White House. He would finish the job Bush didn't when he took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

In reality what we've gotten from him and the democrats in congress is as close to a 180 degree shift from both policy rhetoric as well as his tone and process. He is anything but post partisan. We saw during the stimulus debate, a president that insisted the legislation should and would be written by, in his words those that won the election. His tone on almost every debate has been a denunciation of republicans, and an incessant Bush blaming. The Democrats have defeated every republican amendment to every bill passed this year in congress. Republicans have been shut out of the health care debate and process completely, and then referred to as the party of NO. Both the White House and democrats have tried to marginalize the town hall/tea party attendees, rather than addressing their concerns.

He is anything but post racial. His reaction to the Gates affair this summer was telling. He immediately fell into a Rev. Wright moment when asked about the arrest of Professor Gates at a health care press conference, which obviously had to be stepped back from by hosting the now famous beer summit. He allowed many to play the race card when his policy initiatives were under attack, while he positioned himself above it.

His deeds have not matched his policy rhetoric either. A bloated stimulus bill that did little to stimulate, and served rather as a payback to contributors was rammed through without being read and posted as promised. The omnibus bill contained 9000 earmarks that he didn't hesitate to sign. He's given exclusive wavers for lobbyists to work in his administration. He's already raised taxes on alcohol and tobacco which is the most regressive of all, and the cap and trade and health care bills rattling around congress both include huge tax increases for all Americans. His administration is announcing trillion dollar deficits for the next ten years, and his fiscal year 2010 budget clocks in at almost 3.6 trillion dollars. His promise to finish the job in Afghanistan is now being reexamined, and transparency is the last word anyone would use to describe this administration and congress.

What the America people were promised they'd get, they haven't. What most didn't expect they'd get, they've gotten. What the foreseeable future holds is more of the same, except now that Virginia and New Jersey have spoken, the foot may have to be eased off the accelerator enough to at least slow the death march to socialism that was always the intent of Barack Obama. Redistribution of wealth, and redistribution of health is now crawling rather than sprinting to the finish line, as blue dogs all across the country study the exit polling from Tuesday's smack down of Washington's arrogant excesses. Many sounded the warning bell before November 2008. It just took a year for many to hear.


Saturday, October 31, 2009

Battle one goes to conservatives over GOP Bigwigs

The ever escalating battle between the GOP hierarchy and the conservative movement energized by Barry's abundant spending spree can chalk up battle one to The tea party/town hall attendees. aka, "new conservative movement." The hand picked Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava has dropped out of the NY 23rd, congressional race in the midst of dropping poll numbers and ever mounting big time endorsements for her conservative opponent, Doug Hoffman. Recent polls showed Scozzafava running third behind a close first and second between Hoffman and the democrat Bill Owens.

This blows up the theory, espoused by Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, and others that endorsing a third party candidate, would split the conservative vote and elect the democrat. Could it be that Newt is underestimating the strength of this new conservative movement. Scozzafava is anything but a conservative. She's, pro choice, pro gay marriage, supported the stimulus, and has been in favor of tax increases to name some of her bonifide liberal credentials. Hopefully this will send a message to GOP top dogs that conservatives aren't going to support liberal Republicans just because they aren't democrats.

It may also send a message to beltway republican pundits that have been for one year decrying the right wing, and advocating a center shift for the republican party. They have excoriated Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin to name a few, proclaiming they must be marginalized for republicans to win, even though the tipping point in the NY 23rd race was Palin's endorsement of Hoffman. It's clear that conservatives, like Palin and Limbaugh, have decided they're conservatives first, and republicans second. With Rush's ratings exploding, and Sarah Palin's advanced book sales tracking galactic, maybe they should shut up and listen to some of what they have to say. They have missed what the tea party/town halls were all about.

They only need to take a look at how democrats and the mainstream media have tried to demonize both Limbaugh and Palin with false accusations. Why. Because they want to marginalize them because they know their message resonates with a majority of Americans. Maybe the republican party should accept the old adage, " my enemies enemy is my friend," and listen to what they're saying that has got the dems and mainstream media's blood pressure erupting.

Or maybe they should read recent polls that show 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, 37% moderate, and only 20% liberal. It's not rocket science. The country, thanks to the Obama administration is not just moving, it's accelerating right at whiplash speed, and if the GOP doesn't stop this moderating trend they will be left out in the cold. With 2010 approaching, and conservatives set to challenge liberal leaning republicans in primaries all across the country, I have one message for the GOP hierarchy. "WATCH YOUR BACKSIDE."

Monday, October 26, 2009

Sarah Palin Takes a Shot Across The Bow Of The U.S.S. GOP

Sarah Palin last week endorsed Doug Hoffman for representative of New York's 23rd congressional district, and snubbed The GOP's selection of liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava on her face book posting. Hoffman is running as a conservative. This all comes with the backdrop that 73% think Republicans in congress have lost touch with GOP voters throughout the nation, according to a Rasmussen reports poll.

Is this a shot across the bow of the good ship U.S.S. GOP? Is Sarah trying to steer the GOP back to it's conservative roots. Is she threatening to take her star power and SarahPAC money to third party and maybe conservative democrats running for congress in 2010? She announced she would donate, from her SarahPAC as much allowed by law to Doug Hoffman's campaign. Is it time for the GOP's heavy hitters to reconsider their endorsements of squishy democrat lite Republicans, whom they say are the only ones who can win in certain districts?

It's becoming increasingly clear, that voters all across the country are disenchanted with the two major parties positioning themselves in what they think are strategic rather than principled ideals. The main stream media missed the whole message given by tea party, and town hall attendees all across the country this year. And that message was, "a pox on both your houses." It was not a Republican movement as they would like you to believe. It was a reduce spending, taxes, and give us back our freedom movement. Republican spending went through the roof over the last 8 years and the budget deficit for 2008 was second only to that of 2009. It's true president Bush reduced taxes, but he also increased spending at an alarming rate, angering many Conservatives in his own party.

So what is Sarah Palin up to. Maybe she's that post partisan politician that Barack Obama said he would be, but we all know turned out not to be. Maybe her Republican loyalty is second to her conservative values. Maybe it's time for the GOP bigwigs to listen to the grassroots tea party / town hallers, and return to the Ronald Reagan type conservatism, that doesn't blur the line between the two parties. Could it be they have misread the reason for the their last two devastating defeats to mean they have to move more to the center? Maybe their out of control spending, and expansion of government was the real reason. Need I remind you Barack Obama positioned himself as a tax cutter for the majority of America, and a fiscal conservative, which we all came to realize was a cruel hoax.

If the Republican party continues down this path, they will watch as a major sea change slips through their ideologically vacant fingers. With most of the country fed up with government largess, and a plurality identifying themselves as conservatives, the beltway GOP continue to push a center tack, even though the number that identify themselves as Republican continues to bleed. It's clear Sarah Palin and a few other Republicans see and understand the mood of the country. The Republican hierarchy and most GOP members of congress do not.

The democrat party's over reaching, deficit spending and overall power grab, has given every reason for a massive power shift in 2010. But does the Republican party really know how to position themselves without bungling the opportunity. Maybe they should take a tip from the fly over country conservatives. The bitter clingers. The unsophisticated anti elitist army of American lovers. Maybe they should listen to Sarah Palin!

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Jihad Against Fox News

Well, the inevitable has happened. We know why Obama has hesitated on sending extra troops to Afghanistan. He believes his real enemies are here in the homeland. The Taliban doesn't pose as real a threat to his administration, as Fox News does. Notice I said administration, not America. Does this president really care about America? I hesitate to say that about any US president but it's becoming increasingly clear that his main concern is his agenda. America and the constitution, go to the end of the line.

The chilling Jihad against Fox News should move all Americans to action. A full court censorship play is being enacted on the conservative news organization in broad daylight.
David Axelrod said on This Week, referring to Fox, 'It's not really news, it's pushing a point of view and the bigger thing is other news organizations like yours, ought not to treat them that way." A veiled threat? perhaps. In other words, we don't consider them legitimate, therefore you better not pick up and run with any stories that originate from Fox. Why? Because in the "new America" the only News organization that's challenging this administration is Fox. Look at the Acorn and Van Jones scandals. The mainstream media were found prostrate in messiah worship, and were only forced to cover them when they became unavoidable..

This White house is aware that more will be coming out, because they know Fox is doing the work as democracies watchdog, and this is a preemptive shot across the bow, so the administration's lap dogs, "the Main stream media," don't go with the Fox stories. Rahm Emanuel was on CNN Sunday spouting the same narrative. It's an obvious coordinated effort to marginalize the only network challenging the power structure in Washington.

It's revealing to me that Stephanopoulus didn't even challenge Axelrod about his assessment of Fox. Shouldn't they be a little embarrassed that the White House is only upset with one network? And, that they are admitting Fox is the only one asking the tough questions? Shouldn't they be outraged that the administration is telling them how to treat a competitor. Are they so blinded by the radiant glow around Obama's brow, they're afraid to challenge? Could the White House's strategy already be working? Are those White House cocktail parties so alluring? The chance to touch the hem of his garment and maybe feel his power. They don't want to risk losing access to the closest thing to heaven they may ever know. It looks to me like the Chicago thug machine has already neutered the Main stream media.

The only hope we have of the Main stream media pulling itself out of this Obama worship paralysis, is free market capitalism. How Ironic is that? When they continue to see Fox's ratings soar like balloon boys transport, that grabbed everyone's attention, maybe they'll realize they actually have to work for a living. Ad revenues are through the roof for Fox, while others are struggling. Maybe that will awaken them, or maybe they'll just continue to tow the messiah's line, and hope he grants them redemption, or should I say a bailout.....See: "The Independent Press Is On Life Support" down this page...

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Rush Gets Borked

I've Listened and been a fan of the Rush Limbaugh show since 1990. I find Rush Informative, humorous, and above all in agreement with almost all my conservative views. I listen to Rush because he can take an issue and articulate it and bring greater clarity, and perspective. He is one of the most polite and patient host with callers on air today. His parodies of the left are the most cutting and entertaining. Of course Rush is controversial. His show wouldn't be what it is, if he wasn't. Why was he denied a shot at minority interest in the NFL? Is he a racist?

Rush's number two man on his show, Bo Snerdley is black. One of his most frequent guest hosts, Walter Williams, is black. Ken Hutcherson, Former NFL player, who Rush regularly calls a good friend is black. Would a racist allow a person of color to guest host his show? Would he hire a black man to work along side of him? Would he consider an African American man one of his dearest and closest friends?

What the media, and the left have done, is taken Rush's opposition to racial politics, and labeled that racism. If you don't tow the progressive stereotype, you'll be David Duked. But, of course they can attempt to crucify a man like Clarence Thomas with unfounded charges and innuendo, and that is not racist. Why? Because his politics don't match theirs. And if it ever gets out that blacks can make it on their own, that they really don't have a pigmentation problem, what does that do to their power? They won't be needed. No need for them to incessantly insist, "we will help you, because you're incapable of helping yourself." Talk about Racism! Talk about a soft bigotry, that implies inferiority. Why do progressives constantly disparage minorities by insinuating that if you don't have us you have nothing? We're here to help you. Help you what. Point out that your black or another minority. They know they're black. God made them that way, and God doesn't make mistakes, but the implication from the left is, he did, and now you need us to square the score. It's condescending, and arrogant.

The irony that defines this whole incident, is that the minority players in the NFL, are probably more inclined to agree with Rush's take on prosperity and rugged individualism. The liberals in congress and the media didn't spend years in the weight room and practice sessions to acquire the strength and skill level to be an NFL player. These players made it by following a dream and spilling bucket loads of sweat, and overcoming sprained ankles and bruised and aching bodies. Most all athletes don't want a majority of their income confiscated from them because those same liberals think they are better able to pick and choose where it should go. If those minority players took the time to listen to Rush on a regular basis, instead of buying into the template the mainstream media has perpetrated about Rush, they would find much in common.

Where do we go from here? First the media that broadcasts un-sourced and false quotes and attribute them to an individual that doesn't agree with their racial politics should be shunned. The progressives who divide America, and disparage blacks by insinuating, you can't make it without us, need to be defeated and marginalized. And last, minority players who agree that rugged individualism and hard work, is the way to get ahead, must stand for that principle without fear of being Uncle Tom-ed to death. True racial parity will only be realized when American's stop considering color as a basis for ridicule or entitlement, and allow God's children to dream, and pursue their goals unabated. Let's all dream Dr. King's dream, "that all men should be judged not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character."


Saturday, October 10, 2009

Nobel Peace Prize? Who's the joke really on?

After waking yesterday morning and hearing the news that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace, I immediately chuckled and whispered to myself, "typical that the left leaning, socialist loving Nobel committee would honor one of their own." It's obvious they feel they've found a new soul mate. A kindred spirit. The new 21st century snake charmer who can with a poof of pixie dust, disable dangerous dictators and despots. They see him as the new hope for a world at war, a wannabe peace nick, willing to beer summit holocaust denying race bait-ers. The kind of friend seeking high school principle, we all loved, because you could weasel him out of every detention session and expulsion threat. The One that was apt at saying, "this is your last warning." He's a UN kinda man, that loves sanctions and resolutions, but despises the teeth behind them.

The kind of "Man of Peace," that garners praise from Moammar Gaddafi,
at his UN speech and was called more left wing than Hugo Chavez and Castro, by none other than Hugo Chaves.
No other man in recent decades has so appealed to the world wide appeasers, those beta dog back scratchers, who would never threaten the Alpha dog at any canine gathering.

Who is this insidious joke on? How about allies Poland, and the Czech republic, who put their necks on the line and were unceremoniously undercut by the new, "Man of Peace," when he scuttled the missile defense plan for central Europe. And then there's the Afghan women, who soon will once again be caned and tortured, when their veils slip because the "Man of Peace," has signaled he may give the Taliban a place at the political table in the Afghan government. What about Israel, who will be going it alone to stop the Iranians from engineering another holocaust with their nuclear ambitions. how about the CIA, whose morale is bottoming out because the "Man of Peace" OK'd the investigation and possible prosecution of their work in securing life saving information. And of course last but not least, while American service personnel labor in inclement conditions to prevent a new Al Qaeda staging ground, the new "man of Peace," is hesitating on whether or not to send in reinforcements. These brave men and women are left high and dry, their blood coloring the afghan topography while the "man of Peace," ponders how he'll satisfy his left,while not politically hurting himself, and at the same time live up to the Oslo narrative.

While the "Man of Peace" continues his apology tour around the globe, the American haters befriend and canonize him. They lift him to a deified status, based on nothing more than his insistence to fundamentally remake America. The land that has been the dream destination for oppressed and impoverished people for decades. America, the first to defend and the first to arrive when catastrophe hits. The land of opportunity, and enlightenment. While the world adores and praises the "man of Peace," America's interests, along with it's allies' are marginalized and muffled by the deafening adulation. Yes, the new "man of Peace," has made new friends. But, just like the old adage states, " with friends like these, who needs enemies."

Friday, October 2, 2009

"Going Rogue" hits number one

Sarah Palin's book, "Going Rogue" hit number one on Amazons advanced sales list. It also hit number one on Barnes and Noble. I'm sure the left, along with the mainstream media, and many Republicans, will be apoplectic on the Sunday news shows and every commentary in the coming weeks. They will continue their unabated attack, Steve Schmidt being the newest Republican big shot to attack Sarah. He said, "It's not inconceivable Palin could win the Republican nomination, but, it's inconceivable she could win the presidency." Now this is coming from McCain's chief campaign strategist, that was obviously in the loop when Palin was picked as McCain's running mate in the 2008 election.

Why, suddenly, are the GOP honchos turning on the woman they accepted as their number two standard bearer a short time ago? Are they admitting there is nobody they can can put up against this diminutive national neophyte. Do they blame her for McCains loss? Do they think her Couric and Gibson missteps did the GOP in? It's funny that Joe Biden was a walking foot and mouth disease, but that didn't seem to dim the Messiah's halo. It seems to me that when she was announced as running mate, an anemic and drowning campaign was suddenly energized. They consider her a sure loser for the presidency, but they are uncertain they have a viable candidate to oppose her for the nomination. What does that say about the Republican bench players. This is a profound admission from a party looking advantaged, in the current, and growing anti democrat climate. Or are they just as condescending toward the conservative base as the left, and mainstream media are?

You would think the left would encourage and invite a Palin run in 2012, when they consider her so deficient and beatable. An Obama sacrificial lamb. Easy prey for Barack's Chicago thug machine. Wouldn't wise strategy require them to hold their fire and wait for her to be nominated, and then begin the attack. Yet, they are determined to take her out now. Very perplexing!

I think we all know the answer. The power brokers are all scared to death of her. Book sales mean something, as well as huge internet hits for every Palin article. There is a growing and new populist movement. A fly over country commando troop, ready to storm the Washington power palace with pitch forks in hand. They have gone through basic training in town hall meetings all summer long. They are hidden in nooks and crannies on the East and Left coast, ready to erupt, and Sarah Palin has a connection with them, and their values. They are hardened by condescension and innuendo from the Washington aristocracy. These freedom fighters are tired of a hubris of elitism that considers them incapable of managing their own lives.

Now the remaining question is, will Sarah lead them? Do they even need a leader? Is there a new William Wallace of freedom, somewhere out there ready to accept the mantle? Only time will tell. My advice is, with advanced sales of "Going Rogue," going through the roof, don't bet against the Prince William Sound, Beauty Queen!


Monday, September 21, 2009

Independent press is on life support

It's rather revealing that Obama has signaled that he is open to a financial bailout for the media. He told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade that he would be happy to look at bills before congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as non profit businesses. What exactly does that mean for the independent press that has been the backbone of our democracy from its conception?

When you have Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, which is the parent company of NBC, on the presidents team of economic advisers, there has already been a line crossed. There are rumors of memos from the top dogs at G.E. , sent to anchors at CNBC encouraging them to take it easy on Obama, especially after Rick Santelli's rant against Obama's policies, that was one factor in spawning the tea party movement. Then you have MSNBC, which has already forfeited any semblance of an independent media, cheering on Obama from mid way in the primaries. Both cable stations are under the parent company General Electric. Then, of course, there's ABC's decision to broadcast Obama's health care infomercial from the White House without allowing an opposing view, and even denying ad buys that countered the president's rhetoric.

You've got G.E. heavily invested in green energy technology with Jeffrey Immelt the CEO having Barack Obama's ear, and an unholy alliance between private industry and government policy developing, where favors can be appropriated if the news organization at NBC continues favorable coverage of all things Obama. Where has the concept of true journalistic ethics, and media watch dog gone. Lap dog would be a better term to describe the current mainstream media.

And now a media bailout is being bantered about, with even greater implications afoot. We already have an administration that has shown they will reward allies, while punishing news organizations that actually do the job, that has kept government accountable. Notice Obama's Sunday media blitz didn't include an appearance on Fox News Sunday, an obvious snub for their refusal to broadcast his last prime time news conference, and Fox News channel's relentless reporting of unsavory characters in the administration, and corruption by pro Obama allies. It would be an intolerable development for any administration to be given the power to choose winners and losers in the media collage.

There has already been an attempt to silence radio talk show hosts by marginalizing them, and of course congress's renewed love affair with the fairness doctrine, is lying in the weeds. It would require all radio stations to offer opposing views, even if they are not economically viable for ad revenues. You've got this administration threatening legal action against Humana for mailings, warning seniors of medicare service cuts if Obama care is passed. Of course Obama himself can make outrages and overblown promises with no basis in fact, and when he's called out the offender is publicly caned.

Patriots who understand the threat a state run media poses, no matter what party is in power, need to stand up against the death of an independent media. No democracy can survive when the state controls information, by intimidation or economic viability. It's time to stand against the creeping tyranny that the first amendment guaranteed all Americans freedom from, through the musings of a free and independent press.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Obama, slyly uses the race card

First Maureen Dowd, cries racism, as my last post refers to, and then Jimmy Carter accuses critics of this administration of opposing Obama because he's black. Now Nancy Pelosi is decrying the rhetoric of the opposition as inciting violence. Is this a coordinated effort to bring Obama's poll numbers up? I have a sneaky suspicion that, the white house in concert with the mainstream media, and democrat lawmakers are concocting a grand scheme to make this president look post racial.

Obama is scheduled to be on Letterman. and every Sunday news show this coming weekend, except Fox, and undoubtedly will be asked the question, by those paragons of honesty and virtue, "the mainstream media," if he believes the critics of his policies are motivated by his race. The president will of course answer that question, "absolutely not!" Then the media will begin a week long adoration extravaganza. they will bend over backwards to project Barack Obama as being post racial and attempting to bring the American people together. There is no way this president wants to be perceived as playing the race card, Ala, the Gates affair, where he let his guard down and fell back into a Reverend Wright moment.

Of course he wants his critics silenced. And of course he believes in the accusation of racism as a means to that end. He just doesn't want the American people to believe he's behind it, or believes it. But, if the far left, and the mainstream media, can carry the water on this smear campaign, he's fine with that, as long as he can float high above the fray. He's learned a valuable lesson, or at least he should have, from the Gates affair, that playing the race card will only hurt his standing with the overwhelming majority of the American people. And he also knows that the sycophants in the media, and the far left members in congress, and a bitter ex-president, can and will do what he can't afford to do himself. And, even though he's going to vehemently disagree with them publicly, he'll be cheering them on, from behind his Wizard of OZ curtain.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Maureen Dowd: Is she a racist?

I just finished reading a column by Maureen Dowd that has my blood boiling. The name of the column is"Boy oh Boy," and in it, she has succumbed to the mainstream medias' default position , that all of Obama's problems stem from an inherent racism, and that many just can't accept a black president. She starts out the column by saying, and I quote, "Joe Wilson yelled "you lie! at a president who didn't. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: you lie, boy!"

Now Maureen, When someone hears something in the air that isn't there, especially that implies blatant bigotry, I would be more concerned about the racism in that individual. When you imply he meant to say boy, isn't it because, maybe deep inside, that's how you see the president? Isn't it because you see him as somehow in need of your defense? You, and all your elitists friends think that he has a pigmentation problem, and therefore requires special treatment, and less criticism than other presidents before him. There is a soft bigotry in your snobby accusations against many in this country. You imply that he's not a big boy, oops there's that word "boy" again, and can't take care of himself.

Actually, maybe it's this. You know his health care plan, which you support, cannot be defended by you, your liberal friends, and the president himself, so you cynically slap down your trump card, that ever explosive race card, hoping you'll take the pot this time. Maybe you can stop the criticism if you threaten the criticizers with a label that would be better placed at your doorstep. Alas, the liberal way, comes down to that famous default position, America is racist, therefore they can't support this president. When liberals constantly assume that blacks in this country, need, not only the federal government's help, but also a liberal columnist's help, that is bigotry, pure and simple. Barack Obama, was smart enough, and tough enough to reach the highest office in this land, and to assume he needs you, castigating his critics, "as racist," so that he may succeed, completely undermines your argument, and points the "racist label," at yourself..

Another point, Maureen. How do you explain that he came into office with almost a 70% approval rating, and unprecedented good will from the American people. How do you explain that his personal approval ratings remained high through the spring, even though the American people were not approving of his policies. Can you not even consider, that it's his policy choices and radical liberalism that is bringing his numbers down. Of course you can't, because you believe in every one of them, and how could you be wrong.

Your constant haranguing of all things southern, while you vacation in Martha's Vineyard, soothing your guilty conscience, sipping chardonnay, with your friends, including those lucky black academics, that made it, according to you, even though the whole system was stacked against them, rings hollow with most Americans. While you sit in your insulated, Eastern elitist, cocoon of judgement, most Americans lead a normal life, of blood sweat and tears, and don't take kindly to the likes of you, impugning their character.

In conclusion, Maureen, If you're willing to have an honest debate, about the policy issues that will effect millions of Americans for decades to come, conservatives are more than willing. But, if on the other hand, you simple want to shoot out invectives, that grab headlines and soothe your liberal friends fevered brows, than retreat back into your cocoon until a full metamorphosis of intelligent debate transpires.

For a full airing of Ms. Dowds column, copy and paste the following web address, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?ref=opinion


Friday, September 11, 2009

9/11: Eight Years Later

I was struck, watching the replay of the media's account of 9/11 this morning, that the attack , even though the pentagon and our government were targeted, was primarily an assault on free market capitalism. What better way to attack that system than to go after the heart of our financial district. Watching those towers ablaze and then ultimately crumbling to the ground, was a reminder to all of us that our very way of life was being violently assaulted.

Thank God that the terrorist failed in an attempt to cripple our financial institutions and therefore our way of life. The American people, for the most part, remained vigilant and united in an effort to protect the sanctity of American life from a terror influence.

Fast forward eight years, and we now have an even greater, albeit less violent, attempt to structurally change free market capitalism in this country. The threat doesn't come from remote caves, or scorching sands, of middle Eastern topography. This threat comes from the highest levels of our federal government. It comes from a newly elected administration that has piggy backed its way to power on the American people's thirst for change, and a post racial America.

Barack Obama, has stated in so many words, that the wealth of this country should be returned to it's rightful owners. He told Joe the plumber, that it's a good idea to spread the wealth around. Every policy decision, and proposal, has ultimately involved confiscating wealth from the private sector, and bringing it into the public arena, where he and his cohorts will decide how to distribute it. Government is growing at an alarming rate, while the private sector struggles to keep it's head above water. Government is taking control of private sector businesses, passing laws to restrict compensation, while the wage gap between federal workers and private sector employees grow exponentially. The total compensation average for federal employees, in 2008, was $119.982, while the private sector average compensation was $59,909, according to statistics from the Cato institute.

The federal government is hiring at an alarming rate, which shrinks that ever important balance between a productive private sector, and publicly employed America. Wealth creation ultimately suffers when the federal government gobbles up all available money to simply pay the interest on it's debt, which is right now 500 million dollars per day.
It is impossible for trillions of dollars to be systematically shuffled from the private sector, to the Federal government without a massive change in lifestyle, standard of living and freedom for all Americans, except those that work for, or have a stake in government largess. At some point critical mass will be reached, and the voting patterns will change to reflect the best interest of government, rather than free market capitalism.

My question to all of you is, are we still willing to remain vigilant in opposition to the over throw of free market capitalism, that made this country the greatest and freest on the face of the earth? Are we willing to take on the powers that be, to ensure our way of life and an American style standard of living? Are we willing to stand for liberty, rather than tyranny?

Barack Obama wants to proclaim 9/11 a national day of service. I don't just say no, I say hell no. 9/11 is a day of remembrance to those, that were snuffed out by radicals trying to change our lives in profound ways. Those nice sounding words are a trap to bring you into the collectivism mentality, that will stop you from working for the best interest of you and your family, and ultimately your community. This country needs to return to a rugged individualism, where hard work is rewarded, and an entitlement mentality scorned. Volunteer work is fine and admirable, but lets not be snookered into thinking this is anything but a call for more community organizing radicals, funded by big government, under the supervision of Mr. Obama.

We in our minds might believe there's a huge difference between terrorism and big government, but in reality their goals are the same. And every American should be vigilant, and profoundly aware of their goals. They both want to, "CONTROL YOUR LIFE!"