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incident and try to reassure the public by stating, in Napolitano's words, "The system worked," which after criticism was retracted.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
Link
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
Link
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
Link
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
Link
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."
Link
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!
Link
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.
Link
