My son graduated from High School this afternoon. Yea! Sob! His is the eighth graduating class of this beautiful new school. As frustrating as life can be to a parent of a child in a large urban public high school, at least his surroundings were state of the art.
I told my son it seemed as though we were hearing the roster from the United Nations being read as the names were called of the graduates. I love that. The class of 555 was enthusiastic and a little teary, just as I imagined. The family and friends in the audience, including me and my husband, were loud and supportive when the time came. I think I only cried 4 times but I could be wrong.
And, his father left the air horn at home. Unintentionally. Someone else's father remembered, though, and my husband turned to me and say, "See, I'm not the only one with that idea." The man must have sneaked it in past security at the entrance. We were wanded and walked through a metal detector. Plus, purses and bags were searched, just like the airport. Good times.
The venue was Reliant Arena, normally used for Houston Comets (WNBA) games and the like. It was almost full. There was the color guard from the JROTC and all the Deans and teachers were there to hug the grads, shake hands and generally relish in the completion of four long years.
The coolest part? The Salutatorian address. Her name is Kait and she is a friend of my son's. She is a pretty blonde and instead of doing the standard boring speech, she chose to deliver her remarks in Rap form. She was awesome, there is no other word for it.
The most touching part? Three close friends of the student who drowned last month at school delivered a poem they wrote for him and his family. Yeah, that was one of my four teary parts. His parents were given their son's diploma. Two of the boys were Nigerian (like Vincent was) and the other's parents came from Kenya. My son had two classes with Vincent and said he was a good guy.
A photo was taken of each grad as they accepted a diploma - a fake one, the real ones are to be picked up in two weeks - from the Principal. I took some shots with my favorite camera, an old school non-digital and my husband snapped away with his digital. Maybe some will come out good. It was a big place and crowded and we were up a bit from the floor, so fingers crossed.
A funny bit happened at the beginning of the ceremony, we said the Pledge of Allegiance. Then the Texas State Pledge. My husband, who does not have a soft voice, said, "I didn't know there was such a thing as a State Pledge." Before I could respond, the guy in front of us said he thought it was an only in Texas kind of thing. He was from Minnesota! "Well, this IS Texas, you know", he said. I didn't know of its existence either before I joined my Republican woman's group and they say it, too.
We were pleasantly surprised that the hoopla only lasted just under two hours. It was really well organized, which has to be the case with so many rowdy Seniors.
Class of 08, we salute you. Onward and upward.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Surrender the Fantasy
To this lifelong Republican woman, the little thing called the Democrat National Committee meeting held today in D.C. and filmed for C-SPAN was an exercise in wading through the weeds. I thought, well, who knows when this will happen again, this whole deciding if two states are represented at a national convention thing. May as well see the circus when it's in town.
The verdict was that Florida and Michigan get to go to the big show but only half of their votes will count. They split the baby in half.
The theatrics were entertaining. There was Congressman Wexler, from Florida, soundly patting himself on the back for all his work in getting votes counted in Florida. Team Obama sent him to argue their case for the people of Florida. His voice was loud and he aptly used the hitting the table for sound effect gesture, too. Quite the performer. Applause, applause.
The award for best performance for Team Clinton went to Harold Ickes. Just count the votes. The fine people of Florida and Michigan do not deserve to be disenfranchised. He had a very vocal and enthusiastic cheering section up in the balcony. Go, Harold. Go, Harold. He was on a slow boil most of the time. No one produces a sneer like Harold.
Remember when 'disenfranchisement' wasn't a part of regular political discussion, much less so very overused? Since November 2000, all of a sudden all the cool kids use it.
The co-chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee welding the gavel, Alexis Herman, used the tool frequently and I can only imagine it was a form of release of her tension headache she must have developed as the meeting progressed. Formerly of the Clinton administration, Herman was Secretary of Labor and her co-chair is James Roosevelt, Jr., grandson of FDR.
As the final state was decided, Michigan, and it came time for Ickes to make his statement, the Clinton strategy was clear. "Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee." Da-da-dum.
At the close of the session, Herman promised the committee that the next meeting would be conducted via telephone conferencing. Back to the behind the scenes wheeling and dealing. Aren't the Democrats suppose to be for the average guy?
All in all it was a strange way to try to unify the party. It simply didn't happen. Clinton supporters were yelling "Denver, Denver, Denver" every chance possible. Actually, when Alice Huffman stated to the audience that when the final vote was taken, everyone would leave the room unified much more than when they entered the room, she was booed and laughed at by the crowd.
The verdict was that Florida and Michigan get to go to the big show but only half of their votes will count. They split the baby in half.
The theatrics were entertaining. There was Congressman Wexler, from Florida, soundly patting himself on the back for all his work in getting votes counted in Florida. Team Obama sent him to argue their case for the people of Florida. His voice was loud and he aptly used the hitting the table for sound effect gesture, too. Quite the performer. Applause, applause.
The award for best performance for Team Clinton went to Harold Ickes. Just count the votes. The fine people of Florida and Michigan do not deserve to be disenfranchised. He had a very vocal and enthusiastic cheering section up in the balcony. Go, Harold. Go, Harold. He was on a slow boil most of the time. No one produces a sneer like Harold.
Remember when 'disenfranchisement' wasn't a part of regular political discussion, much less so very overused? Since November 2000, all of a sudden all the cool kids use it.
The co-chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee welding the gavel, Alexis Herman, used the tool frequently and I can only imagine it was a form of release of her tension headache she must have developed as the meeting progressed. Formerly of the Clinton administration, Herman was Secretary of Labor and her co-chair is James Roosevelt, Jr., grandson of FDR.
As the final state was decided, Michigan, and it came time for Ickes to make his statement, the Clinton strategy was clear. "Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee." Da-da-dum.
At the close of the session, Herman promised the committee that the next meeting would be conducted via telephone conferencing. Back to the behind the scenes wheeling and dealing. Aren't the Democrats suppose to be for the average guy?
All in all it was a strange way to try to unify the party. It simply didn't happen. Clinton supporters were yelling "Denver, Denver, Denver" every chance possible. Actually, when Alice Huffman stated to the audience that when the final vote was taken, everyone would leave the room unified much more than when they entered the room, she was booed and laughed at by the crowd.
Ickes final parting shot: "I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that...this is not a good way to start down the path to party unity." Cheering all around.
As Winona Ryder said in Reality Bites, "Surrender the fantasy".
Friday, May 30, 2008
Obama Must Leave His Church
You never know what a day will bring. A bit of self-promotion: I saw a blog post of mine in the Chicago Sun-Times. Wild. That was random. And awesome.
Then there is the revelation that Barack Obama must leave his church in Chicago. I think that is all that is left for him to do if he ever wants to get the 'typical white person' vote, especially the white woman vote. The latest embarrassment for the campaign is the screed, from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ, by Roman Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger. He was all jacked up over Hillary and her run against Obama. He gleefully mocked her. He said Hillary thought, "There's a black man stealing my show." "Oh, damn, where did you come from?"
What's with all the cussing coming from this pulpit?
And the congregation stood and laughed and clapped and enjoyed the whole show.
This priest is a man of the cloth who openly supports and campaigns for Obama. He has an old and close friendship with Rev. Wright. And, he is an old friend of Obama. Pfleger is just as offensive as Wright. He is a racist, a white man suffering from liberal white guilt. He even puts on a pseudo black sounding voice as he shrieks. He promotes hate, not love.
The Obama campaign issued the standard statement, denouncing such behavior. And, later in his own statement, Obama feigned disappointment. And then Pfleger gave a semi-apologetic statement, the qualified kind "if anyone was offended" type of apology, which is not an apology at all. Pfleger said his screed was "inconsistent with Senator Obama's life and message."
Liar.
When does some honesty begin here? Maybe this church and the whole black theology ministry reasoning doesn't bother voters. Those passionately supporting Obama may not be offended by the ugliness coming from the pulpit. This performance by Pfleger was just 5 days ago. This isn't ancient history. Jake Tapper of ABC News reported that Obama's response and Pfleger's endorsement of Obama are still at the Yahoo cache of Obama's web site. The Google cache also has it, and it's dated May 24, the day before Pfleger's rant at the church. So the campaign knows full well of these actions.
And so does the candidate. Obama secured $200,000 in earmarks for Pfleger's church. I guess the candidate so put off by lobbyists is one himself for his friends. And the Obama campaign transported Pfleger to Iowa to campaign before the caucus. He was on the spiritual advisory board, like Wright, for the campaign and headed up Catholics for Obama.
With Wright and Pfleger we are told that these are snippets. These are just a small sample of what originates from the pulpit. There's good work going on in the community by the church. And the campaign and candidate are shocked, shocked I tell you, of this bad behavior.
How long are the 'typical' people suppose to believe this charade?
Either Obama is naive to the point of stupidity or he is a liar. There is no way he is so terribly surprised or shocked or thought these religious advisers of his are anything other than what they are. Obama deliberately chose to join the church as his introduction into the community and the political machine. He carefully scripted his friendships and plotted a course for success in politics. He has been quite adept at creating a compelling story to promote his political ambitions. Obama certainly doesn't lack a healthy ego. The man has written two books on the story of his life and he is still in his 40's. He's special, you know. But he's offended if you call him a politician. It was Wright's denouncemen of Obama as just a politician that produced the severed, allegedly, relationship between the two. Not all the other stuff.
Would his white mother approve of his church and what comes out of it? Would she be one of the clapping and cheering congregation members? Maybe. She married two Muslim men. Her son has a Muslim name. Maybe this translates into the black liberation theology that is preached.
The candidate of change and post racial and bi-partisan claims is not. This is clear. He has been a member of this church for 20 years. He professes to be different, that he doesn't have to be beholding to lobbyists, then uses David Axelrod as his campaign manager. He has no record of bi-partisanship in the Senate. He backs out of his word to colleagues.
Off the teleprompter, the snappy speech reader is not so fast on his feet. He has an ever-growing list of gaffes. He claims President Bush is a man of failed policies. A man who is so divisive. Except that is not the real history. We are a nation still without attack since 9/11, the economy has bounced back from the horrors of that attack and the recession promoted for political reasons by the msm for the Obama campaign is not there. Yes, there is economic slowdown. Cyclical. Unemployment is still at record lows. Finance rates still at record low rates. The mortgage 'crisis'? To hear Obama talk, no one is paying their mortgage obligations. It is less than five percent, again, record low rate of mortgage repayment failures. There are problems as there are always. Obama has to manufacture and exaggerate to make his candidacy into something. Bush came into Washington trying to change the tone.He, however, had a real history of working with both sides of the aisle, especially his Democrat lt. governor. He was quickly shut down. Bush even worked with Ted Kennedy, Obama's new best friend, on education reform. Laura Bush was with Kennedy on Capitol Hill on 9/11. That was before Obama was even in the Senate.
Don't think. Just feel. We are the change we've been waiting for. It all sounds so ridiculous and shallow. Obama's only hope is to stop with the phony statements of disappointment and disapproval. Simply stating that if Wright had not retired, Obama would have had to leave the church isn't enough. He still has to leave. Otherwise he is just another clapping, cheering, shouting member of the congregation showing his approval of the campaigning from the pulpit. The racist hate speech.
Leaders lead by example. Pretty words with exaggerated accents are cheap.
As The Wall Street Journal points out: "People who made fun of President Bush for his naivete in sizing up Vladimir Putin ain't seen nothing yet."
Then there is the revelation that Barack Obama must leave his church in Chicago. I think that is all that is left for him to do if he ever wants to get the 'typical white person' vote, especially the white woman vote. The latest embarrassment for the campaign is the screed, from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ, by Roman Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger. He was all jacked up over Hillary and her run against Obama. He gleefully mocked her. He said Hillary thought, "There's a black man stealing my show." "Oh, damn, where did you come from?"
What's with all the cussing coming from this pulpit?
And the congregation stood and laughed and clapped and enjoyed the whole show.
This priest is a man of the cloth who openly supports and campaigns for Obama. He has an old and close friendship with Rev. Wright. And, he is an old friend of Obama. Pfleger is just as offensive as Wright. He is a racist, a white man suffering from liberal white guilt. He even puts on a pseudo black sounding voice as he shrieks. He promotes hate, not love.
The Obama campaign issued the standard statement, denouncing such behavior. And, later in his own statement, Obama feigned disappointment. And then Pfleger gave a semi-apologetic statement, the qualified kind "if anyone was offended" type of apology, which is not an apology at all. Pfleger said his screed was "inconsistent with Senator Obama's life and message."
Liar.
When does some honesty begin here? Maybe this church and the whole black theology ministry reasoning doesn't bother voters. Those passionately supporting Obama may not be offended by the ugliness coming from the pulpit. This performance by Pfleger was just 5 days ago. This isn't ancient history. Jake Tapper of ABC News reported that Obama's response and Pfleger's endorsement of Obama are still at the Yahoo cache of Obama's web site. The Google cache also has it, and it's dated May 24, the day before Pfleger's rant at the church. So the campaign knows full well of these actions.
And so does the candidate. Obama secured $200,000 in earmarks for Pfleger's church. I guess the candidate so put off by lobbyists is one himself for his friends. And the Obama campaign transported Pfleger to Iowa to campaign before the caucus. He was on the spiritual advisory board, like Wright, for the campaign and headed up Catholics for Obama.
With Wright and Pfleger we are told that these are snippets. These are just a small sample of what originates from the pulpit. There's good work going on in the community by the church. And the campaign and candidate are shocked, shocked I tell you, of this bad behavior.
How long are the 'typical' people suppose to believe this charade?
Either Obama is naive to the point of stupidity or he is a liar. There is no way he is so terribly surprised or shocked or thought these religious advisers of his are anything other than what they are. Obama deliberately chose to join the church as his introduction into the community and the political machine. He carefully scripted his friendships and plotted a course for success in politics. He has been quite adept at creating a compelling story to promote his political ambitions. Obama certainly doesn't lack a healthy ego. The man has written two books on the story of his life and he is still in his 40's. He's special, you know. But he's offended if you call him a politician. It was Wright's denouncemen of Obama as just a politician that produced the severed, allegedly, relationship between the two. Not all the other stuff.
Would his white mother approve of his church and what comes out of it? Would she be one of the clapping and cheering congregation members? Maybe. She married two Muslim men. Her son has a Muslim name. Maybe this translates into the black liberation theology that is preached.
The candidate of change and post racial and bi-partisan claims is not. This is clear. He has been a member of this church for 20 years. He professes to be different, that he doesn't have to be beholding to lobbyists, then uses David Axelrod as his campaign manager. He has no record of bi-partisanship in the Senate. He backs out of his word to colleagues.
Off the teleprompter, the snappy speech reader is not so fast on his feet. He has an ever-growing list of gaffes. He claims President Bush is a man of failed policies. A man who is so divisive. Except that is not the real history. We are a nation still without attack since 9/11, the economy has bounced back from the horrors of that attack and the recession promoted for political reasons by the msm for the Obama campaign is not there. Yes, there is economic slowdown. Cyclical. Unemployment is still at record lows. Finance rates still at record low rates. The mortgage 'crisis'? To hear Obama talk, no one is paying their mortgage obligations. It is less than five percent, again, record low rate of mortgage repayment failures. There are problems as there are always. Obama has to manufacture and exaggerate to make his candidacy into something. Bush came into Washington trying to change the tone.He, however, had a real history of working with both sides of the aisle, especially his Democrat lt. governor. He was quickly shut down. Bush even worked with Ted Kennedy, Obama's new best friend, on education reform. Laura Bush was with Kennedy on Capitol Hill on 9/11. That was before Obama was even in the Senate.
Don't think. Just feel. We are the change we've been waiting for. It all sounds so ridiculous and shallow. Obama's only hope is to stop with the phony statements of disappointment and disapproval. Simply stating that if Wright had not retired, Obama would have had to leave the church isn't enough. He still has to leave. Otherwise he is just another clapping, cheering, shouting member of the congregation showing his approval of the campaigning from the pulpit. The racist hate speech.
Leaders lead by example. Pretty words with exaggerated accents are cheap.
As The Wall Street Journal points out: "People who made fun of President Bush for his naivete in sizing up Vladimir Putin ain't seen nothing yet."
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Question Is Why
Hey, did you hear Scott McClellan has a book out? Yeah. He'll be enjoying his fifteen minutes and all the liberal love he can handle. Then, the left will tire of him and he can go over to MSNBC, endorse Obama and begin cheering for the Oklahoma Sooners. If it wasn't so sad, it'd be hilarious.
Poor Scott. The guy was so out of his league as Press Secretary and had the misfortune of serving after Ari Fleischer and before Tony Snow. Tony Snow being the best one so far. Do you even remember the roll out of Ari's book? It got, like, six interviews and no glowing press reviews. Hmm. Scottie worked for Ari. Too bad he's not such a quick study. Ari says he is "heartbroken".
I don't care so much about the words in the book as I do what in the world motivated the man to sink so low. I don't even care so much that he bashes his former co-workers and 'friends' as badly as he does. I just simply ponder, why?
I am fascinated by people. I love life stories. My favorite books have always been biographies. And I read obits in the paper. The stories of lives lived make wonderful reading. So, with Scottie's life background and story, what happened?
Scott McClellan is the youngest of the four sons of Carole Keeton Strayhorn. His mother was born and enjoyed a life of privilege in Austin, Texas. Her father was a much beloved dean of the University of Texas Law School. Austin re-named a section of a city street after the man. Carole began her political career on the Austin School Board, was Mayor of Austin, on the Texas Railroad Commission, and State Comptroller. She ran for Governor, first as a Republican, then as an Independent. She was first a Democrat, in her early political days. You don't think a Republican would be elected Mayor of Austin, do you?
Scottie managed three of his mother's campaigns. He met George W. Bush through her and became a trusted member of his inner circle. A young guy, Bush treated him like another little brother. After working for Bush as Governor, he followed him to D.C.
He should have stayed on a back bench but was elevated to Press Secretary. To put it kindly, he was not up to the task. He always seemed, to me, to be afraid of the press corps, too concerned with them not liking him. And they didn't.
McClellan now claims his editor 'tweaked' the book. Now that the storm has hit. Now that his former friends and co-workers ask him what in the world he is talking about. And why. His publisher has a long history of liberal publications, including books by George Soros, so judge that as you will.
The only conclusion I come to is that the published this book because he wasn't exactly burning up the world with his rising career. No big new jobs waiting as he was fired from the press secretary gig. So, he did it for the money. And by saying vicious, nasty statements he was guaranteed a best seller by the deranged who lap this stuff up. The far left feel so very vindicated. They were right about this administration all along, you know. That is what they say now.
Or, does it also have to do with the fact that President Bush didn't endorse his mother in her races for Governor of Texas? He endorsed his own former lt. governor, our current governor.
Revenge and a bigger bank account. Well, he does have a new wife to support. She, too, worked for the Bush administration. Wonder what she says behind closed doors. The President and First Lady were guests at the wedding.
McClellan was quick to criticize former members of the administration who wrote tell-all books, unflattering to the President and his administration. Two, in particular, Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke, both came under fire from McClellan. So, McClellan is a hypocrite now.
What will he do when his new best friends in the left side of the tv world are bored with him? Go home and count the book sales receipts, I suppose. His credibility is shot, his reputation is gone, and the lingering question is if he was so appalled by the administration's behavior, why didn't he resign? Why accept the positions and then be fired? Why claim he was in the loop and knowledgeable of motives and discussions when it is easily proven he was not. Why didn't he, at the very least, speak up?
Beam me up, Scottie.
Poor Scott. The guy was so out of his league as Press Secretary and had the misfortune of serving after Ari Fleischer and before Tony Snow. Tony Snow being the best one so far. Do you even remember the roll out of Ari's book? It got, like, six interviews and no glowing press reviews. Hmm. Scottie worked for Ari. Too bad he's not such a quick study. Ari says he is "heartbroken".
I don't care so much about the words in the book as I do what in the world motivated the man to sink so low. I don't even care so much that he bashes his former co-workers and 'friends' as badly as he does. I just simply ponder, why?
I am fascinated by people. I love life stories. My favorite books have always been biographies. And I read obits in the paper. The stories of lives lived make wonderful reading. So, with Scottie's life background and story, what happened?
Scott McClellan is the youngest of the four sons of Carole Keeton Strayhorn. His mother was born and enjoyed a life of privilege in Austin, Texas. Her father was a much beloved dean of the University of Texas Law School. Austin re-named a section of a city street after the man. Carole began her political career on the Austin School Board, was Mayor of Austin, on the Texas Railroad Commission, and State Comptroller. She ran for Governor, first as a Republican, then as an Independent. She was first a Democrat, in her early political days. You don't think a Republican would be elected Mayor of Austin, do you?
Scottie managed three of his mother's campaigns. He met George W. Bush through her and became a trusted member of his inner circle. A young guy, Bush treated him like another little brother. After working for Bush as Governor, he followed him to D.C.
He should have stayed on a back bench but was elevated to Press Secretary. To put it kindly, he was not up to the task. He always seemed, to me, to be afraid of the press corps, too concerned with them not liking him. And they didn't.
McClellan now claims his editor 'tweaked' the book. Now that the storm has hit. Now that his former friends and co-workers ask him what in the world he is talking about. And why. His publisher has a long history of liberal publications, including books by George Soros, so judge that as you will.
The only conclusion I come to is that the published this book because he wasn't exactly burning up the world with his rising career. No big new jobs waiting as he was fired from the press secretary gig. So, he did it for the money. And by saying vicious, nasty statements he was guaranteed a best seller by the deranged who lap this stuff up. The far left feel so very vindicated. They were right about this administration all along, you know. That is what they say now.
Or, does it also have to do with the fact that President Bush didn't endorse his mother in her races for Governor of Texas? He endorsed his own former lt. governor, our current governor.
Revenge and a bigger bank account. Well, he does have a new wife to support. She, too, worked for the Bush administration. Wonder what she says behind closed doors. The President and First Lady were guests at the wedding.
McClellan was quick to criticize former members of the administration who wrote tell-all books, unflattering to the President and his administration. Two, in particular, Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke, both came under fire from McClellan. So, McClellan is a hypocrite now.
What will he do when his new best friends in the left side of the tv world are bored with him? Go home and count the book sales receipts, I suppose. His credibility is shot, his reputation is gone, and the lingering question is if he was so appalled by the administration's behavior, why didn't he resign? Why accept the positions and then be fired? Why claim he was in the loop and knowledgeable of motives and discussions when it is easily proven he was not. Why didn't he, at the very least, speak up?
Beam me up, Scottie.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Support Them All
A must-read article on the appeal of Obama with the Marxism-is-good crowd, those still dreaming of a socialist America, has been written by Kyle-Anne Shiver for National Review Online. She skillfully pulls it all together for the reader. I found myself nodding in agreement and appreciative for the voice she presents that represents a great many of us of a certain age. She aptly says we've been there, done that, grew up and the old Marxists hate us for it. They support Obama because they view him as their last shot at taking over.
I listened to a really interesting panel on C-SPAN over the weekend on their Book TV programming. From the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, a panel of authors gathered to speak to an auditorium filled with Army staff and military men about the books they each recently wrote. The subjects were varied but the connecting thread was the need for a larger, professional military. A military that encourages its ranks to make the commitment a career. This was particularly timely as it was Memorial Day weekend and the GI benefits legislation had been bantered about in the Senate last week.
This being an election year, and Senator Jim Webb, (D-VA), a Vietnam veteran with a son in the Marines (like McCain) and grand visions of furthering his political capital by playing to his strength, was chosen to push through a bill of extending benefits for veterans. No problem with that, I personally feel we can't give them enough, but the process would have been honest if the competing bill had not been blocked by Harry Reid, Majority Leader, and not allowed to be voted on. Why? Because McCain was a sponsor of the legislation. The Graham-Burr-McCain was not given a vote on the floor. The Democrats, who promised 'bi-partisanship' and allowing opposition votes once they took over in 2007, lied again. Just like their candidate currently ahead in the Democrat nomination process. He has no history of bi-partisanship either, though he promises it on the stump.
The biggest perk to the Graham-Burr-McCain bill was the ability for the veteran to transfer educational benefits to a spouse or child. As candidate Obama was pandering to an audience with veterans included, on Memorial Day weekend, he said Saturday in Puerto Rico, "I don't understand why John McCain would side with George Bush and oppose our plan to make college more affordable for our veterans. George Bush and John McCain may think our plan is too generous. I could not disagree more." The Democrat talking points are to link Bush and McCain in as many sentences as possible and to do the meany Republican thing. How original for the candidate of change.
The point Obama misses is that the Graham-Burr-McCain bill is more efficient and actually includes a major benefit that the veterans cry out for. As military families move from base to base so frequently, the spouses hoping to continue and finish college are unable to afford the tuition and aren't in one location long enough to meet residence requirements for federal grants. This has been a problem forever and there was actually a chance to fix the problem. It's a shame.
Webb's bill convinces soldiers to go in and serve 3-4 year commitments and then leave. Graham-Burr-McCain encourages career military. As re-enlistment quotas have been met and exceeded, in all branches, already this calendar year, it seems only right to provide what they ask for from the government. Webb's bill expands benefits after only one enlistment. The alternative bill provides a sliding scale of benefits - the longer the service, the greater the benefits. I know, it just makes too much sense for the government. And politicians looking for a headline. Encouraging attrition and slapping spouses and children of the military was the easy way out.
I think it becomes even more clear why President Reagan fired Webb after only 7 months as Secretary of the Navy. He's a cocky, foolish man. He is more interested in personal points than the greater good.
Some Republicans supported the bill, most thinking it was better than not having one. They were wrong and one was from my state. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson voted with Webb. It's a shame. Word is she isn't running for another term when this one is up and she is eyeing the governor's office.
Senator John Cornyn, seeking re-election this year, held strong for the veterans and those currently serving by supporting the alternative. He knows any soldier can leave the military with a two or four year degree if he/she wants it. Educational opportunities are on every base and more are online for those at more remote locations. Over $4500 in tuition assistance per year for those on active duty to attend courses is available without the student even touching the G.I. Bill. Did you know that? Some bases, like Fort Irwin, schedule class so that there is no conflict with rotations. Courses are condensed which means less classroom time.
Cornyn deserves applause for his support of the military spouses and children. We, as a country, owe them the best benefits, too.
Cornyn's Democrat challenger chose to politicize the issue on Memorial Day weekend, too. Unlike Cornyn, who attended a military funeral instead, the Democrat (no name, no publicity here) said "Texas needs two senators fighting for our veterans and our families. It is reprehensible that Cornyn supports keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but refuses to provide for our soldiers once they return home. As a public servant, as a soldier and as a Texas, I am ashamed of Cornyn's continued efforts to deny our troops the benefits they earned defending the United States." Too bad he and Obama have chosen to show their support by turning a deaf ear as to what the military is really asking for.
It's an election year.
"As we meet, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces' storied past. As we all know, the American people have grown sick and tired of the war in Iraq. I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them. But we cannot react to those mistakes by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am sure of this -- seriously endanger the security of the country I have served all my adult life." Excerpt from McCain's Memorial Day Remarks, New Mexico Veterans Memorial, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Somehow that sounds more sincere to me than Obama stating he sees 'fallen heroes' in the audience. Huge gaffe from such an educated man. He sees dead people. "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes - and I see many of them in the audience here today- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong". And, to boost the pandering, another family story gaffe about a great uncle who he referenced as 'a uncle' (again with the poor grammar from a Harvard Law grad) though his mother was an only child. Claimed he came home from freeing the survivors of Auschwitz. Oops.
The panel authors and books were: Marybeth Peterson Ulrich- "Democratizing Communist Militaries", Peter Feaver - "Armed Servants", Dale Herspring -"Rumfeld's Wars", Matthew Moten - "The Delafield Commission and the American Military Profession", and Don Snider - "The Future of the Army Profession."
Support the troops with greater benefits. And their families.
I listened to a really interesting panel on C-SPAN over the weekend on their Book TV programming. From the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, a panel of authors gathered to speak to an auditorium filled with Army staff and military men about the books they each recently wrote. The subjects were varied but the connecting thread was the need for a larger, professional military. A military that encourages its ranks to make the commitment a career. This was particularly timely as it was Memorial Day weekend and the GI benefits legislation had been bantered about in the Senate last week.
This being an election year, and Senator Jim Webb, (D-VA), a Vietnam veteran with a son in the Marines (like McCain) and grand visions of furthering his political capital by playing to his strength, was chosen to push through a bill of extending benefits for veterans. No problem with that, I personally feel we can't give them enough, but the process would have been honest if the competing bill had not been blocked by Harry Reid, Majority Leader, and not allowed to be voted on. Why? Because McCain was a sponsor of the legislation. The Graham-Burr-McCain was not given a vote on the floor. The Democrats, who promised 'bi-partisanship' and allowing opposition votes once they took over in 2007, lied again. Just like their candidate currently ahead in the Democrat nomination process. He has no history of bi-partisanship either, though he promises it on the stump.
The biggest perk to the Graham-Burr-McCain bill was the ability for the veteran to transfer educational benefits to a spouse or child. As candidate Obama was pandering to an audience with veterans included, on Memorial Day weekend, he said Saturday in Puerto Rico, "I don't understand why John McCain would side with George Bush and oppose our plan to make college more affordable for our veterans. George Bush and John McCain may think our plan is too generous. I could not disagree more." The Democrat talking points are to link Bush and McCain in as many sentences as possible and to do the meany Republican thing. How original for the candidate of change.
The point Obama misses is that the Graham-Burr-McCain bill is more efficient and actually includes a major benefit that the veterans cry out for. As military families move from base to base so frequently, the spouses hoping to continue and finish college are unable to afford the tuition and aren't in one location long enough to meet residence requirements for federal grants. This has been a problem forever and there was actually a chance to fix the problem. It's a shame.
Webb's bill convinces soldiers to go in and serve 3-4 year commitments and then leave. Graham-Burr-McCain encourages career military. As re-enlistment quotas have been met and exceeded, in all branches, already this calendar year, it seems only right to provide what they ask for from the government. Webb's bill expands benefits after only one enlistment. The alternative bill provides a sliding scale of benefits - the longer the service, the greater the benefits. I know, it just makes too much sense for the government. And politicians looking for a headline. Encouraging attrition and slapping spouses and children of the military was the easy way out.
I think it becomes even more clear why President Reagan fired Webb after only 7 months as Secretary of the Navy. He's a cocky, foolish man. He is more interested in personal points than the greater good.
Some Republicans supported the bill, most thinking it was better than not having one. They were wrong and one was from my state. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson voted with Webb. It's a shame. Word is she isn't running for another term when this one is up and she is eyeing the governor's office.
Senator John Cornyn, seeking re-election this year, held strong for the veterans and those currently serving by supporting the alternative. He knows any soldier can leave the military with a two or four year degree if he/she wants it. Educational opportunities are on every base and more are online for those at more remote locations. Over $4500 in tuition assistance per year for those on active duty to attend courses is available without the student even touching the G.I. Bill. Did you know that? Some bases, like Fort Irwin, schedule class so that there is no conflict with rotations. Courses are condensed which means less classroom time.
Cornyn deserves applause for his support of the military spouses and children. We, as a country, owe them the best benefits, too.
Cornyn's Democrat challenger chose to politicize the issue on Memorial Day weekend, too. Unlike Cornyn, who attended a military funeral instead, the Democrat (no name, no publicity here) said "Texas needs two senators fighting for our veterans and our families. It is reprehensible that Cornyn supports keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but refuses to provide for our soldiers once they return home. As a public servant, as a soldier and as a Texas, I am ashamed of Cornyn's continued efforts to deny our troops the benefits they earned defending the United States." Too bad he and Obama have chosen to show their support by turning a deaf ear as to what the military is really asking for.
It's an election year.
"As we meet, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces' storied past. As we all know, the American people have grown sick and tired of the war in Iraq. I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them. But we cannot react to those mistakes by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am sure of this -- seriously endanger the security of the country I have served all my adult life." Excerpt from McCain's Memorial Day Remarks, New Mexico Veterans Memorial, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Somehow that sounds more sincere to me than Obama stating he sees 'fallen heroes' in the audience. Huge gaffe from such an educated man. He sees dead people. "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes - and I see many of them in the audience here today- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong". And, to boost the pandering, another family story gaffe about a great uncle who he referenced as 'a uncle' (again with the poor grammar from a Harvard Law grad) though his mother was an only child. Claimed he came home from freeing the survivors of Auschwitz. Oops.
The panel authors and books were: Marybeth Peterson Ulrich- "Democratizing Communist Militaries", Peter Feaver - "Armed Servants", Dale Herspring -"Rumfeld's Wars", Matthew Moten - "The Delafield Commission and the American Military Profession", and Don Snider - "The Future of the Army Profession."
Support the troops with greater benefits. And their families.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Interrupting Free Speech
Taking a break from all things Internet as much as possible over the holiday weekend, I jumped back into the fray this morning. I was able to watch some of John McCain's speech at the University of Denver. The subject was nuclear security. As are all of McCain's public speeches, the audience is not restricted to those friendly to McCain. He has a policy of welcoming anyone from the public and of publicizing the speeches beforehand. So, what happens? He is frequently interrupted by the deranged wanting to shout out their grievances and restricting McCain's exercise of free speech. This morning McCain was interrupted four times. Four times by the likes of Code Pink and Vets Against the Iraq War. A speech is not a town hall free for all.
You may notice that Obama events aren't interrupted by those opposing his candidacy shouting him down.
Did the veterans not think it particularly improper to interrupt McCain's exercise of free speech? What the hell were they fighting for? Or are the deranged so far gone that the irony escapes them? Or maybe it's the double standard that only one side is to be heard. The deranged are nothing but spoiled brats acting out in public.
Hey, where were these self righteous veterans when Obama's Portland rally was preceded by the Decemberists? That is why the crowd reached estimates of 75,000 in attendance - free concert on a Sunday afternoon with good weather in Portland. No mention of this at the time, only drooling press on the size of the crowd for their guy.
The Obama supporting band begins every one of their concerts with what? The Soviet anthem written by Sergei Mikhalkov, Stalin's poet. So, it's now Commies for Obama. Nice.
The band is cool with the kids. And, Obama is nothing if not cool with the kids.
Here's what McCain said after interruption number two this morning: "By the way, I will never surrender in Iraq, my friends. I will never surrender. Our troops will come home with victory and honor. That's my message to them (the protesters)." For a guy who is suppose to be on a hair trigger volatile 'bad' temper, he sure is pleasantly accommodating to those not worthy of such patience.
"Our highest priority must be to reduce the danger that nuclear weapons will ever be used. Such weapons, while still important to deter an attack with weapons of mass destruction against us and our allies, represent the most abhorrent and indiscriminate form of warfare known to man. We do, quite literally, possess the means to destroy all of mankind. We must seek to do all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used."
"Americans have always risen to the challenges of their time. And we have always done so successfully not by hiding from history, but by making history; by encouraging a sometimes reluctant world to follow our lead, and defend civilization from old mistakes and old animosities, and the folly of relying on policies that no longer keep us safe. I want to keep the country I love and have served all my life secure in our freedom. I want us to rise to the challenges of our times, as generations before us rose to theirs. It is incumbent on America, more than any other nation on earth, to lead in building the foundations for a stable and enduring peace, a peace built on the strength of our commitment to it, on the transformative ideals on which we were founded, on our ability to see around the corner of history, and on our courage and wisdom to make new and better choices. No matter how dangerous the threats we face in our day, it still remains within our power to make in our time another, better world than we inherited. And that, my friends, is what I am running for President to do."
John McCain. 5/27/2008
You may notice that Obama events aren't interrupted by those opposing his candidacy shouting him down.
Did the veterans not think it particularly improper to interrupt McCain's exercise of free speech? What the hell were they fighting for? Or are the deranged so far gone that the irony escapes them? Or maybe it's the double standard that only one side is to be heard. The deranged are nothing but spoiled brats acting out in public.
Hey, where were these self righteous veterans when Obama's Portland rally was preceded by the Decemberists? That is why the crowd reached estimates of 75,000 in attendance - free concert on a Sunday afternoon with good weather in Portland. No mention of this at the time, only drooling press on the size of the crowd for their guy.
The Obama supporting band begins every one of their concerts with what? The Soviet anthem written by Sergei Mikhalkov, Stalin's poet. So, it's now Commies for Obama. Nice.
The band is cool with the kids. And, Obama is nothing if not cool with the kids.
Here's what McCain said after interruption number two this morning: "By the way, I will never surrender in Iraq, my friends. I will never surrender. Our troops will come home with victory and honor. That's my message to them (the protesters)." For a guy who is suppose to be on a hair trigger volatile 'bad' temper, he sure is pleasantly accommodating to those not worthy of such patience.
"Our highest priority must be to reduce the danger that nuclear weapons will ever be used. Such weapons, while still important to deter an attack with weapons of mass destruction against us and our allies, represent the most abhorrent and indiscriminate form of warfare known to man. We do, quite literally, possess the means to destroy all of mankind. We must seek to do all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used."
"Americans have always risen to the challenges of their time. And we have always done so successfully not by hiding from history, but by making history; by encouraging a sometimes reluctant world to follow our lead, and defend civilization from old mistakes and old animosities, and the folly of relying on policies that no longer keep us safe. I want to keep the country I love and have served all my life secure in our freedom. I want us to rise to the challenges of our times, as generations before us rose to theirs. It is incumbent on America, more than any other nation on earth, to lead in building the foundations for a stable and enduring peace, a peace built on the strength of our commitment to it, on the transformative ideals on which we were founded, on our ability to see around the corner of history, and on our courage and wisdom to make new and better choices. No matter how dangerous the threats we face in our day, it still remains within our power to make in our time another, better world than we inherited. And that, my friends, is what I am running for President to do."
John McCain. 5/27/2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Ackowledging the Military in Films
While emotionally deranged and intellectually challenged Hollywood actresses are asked to speak at college commencements, like Jessica Lange's tirade on the current administration included in her remarks to the grads of Sarah Larence College, it is refreshing to note a film festival of which you probably did not hear much about. Why? Because it is all about real and positive messages, not Hollywood re-writes of history and Bush derangement on parade.
May 14-18, 2008 were the dates of the GI Film Festival at the Carnegie Institute of Washington, in Washington, D.C. In its second year, the 501c(3) non-profit organization is, according to its web site, the "first film festival in the nation to exclusively celebrate the successes and scrifices of the American military through the medium of film."
Features, documentaries and short films were to be screened. Panel discussions, educational forums and special events were on the schedule.
Brandon Millett is President of the organization. With 15 years experience in media relations as a communications professional, he was doing the little press afforded him in today's not-interested-in-success military stories. Laura A. Law is the Festival Director. She is a veteran with 17 years Army and U.S. Army Reserve service. For the past 6 years she has worked in management for Target Corp, Pizer Inc. and Roche while also acting as President of her own non=profit with the focus on ending sex trafficking.
This year, the GI Film Festival's Spirit Award Recipient Jon Voight and Corporate Patriot Award Recipients Vince and Linda McMahon, Gary Sinise, Robert Duvall and Stephen Baldwin, along with WWE Superstar Ric Flair were honored and presented awards by last year's honoree, Gary Sinise. The GI Spirit Award is "presented to an actor/producer/director who best embodies the spirit of a GI in the creative and philanthropic work." Jon Voight was recognized for his time spent visiting wounded warriors.
Take note, LaLa Land. There's a reason the Bush deranged, military hating films released over the last few months have been box office duds. There was a time when the film industry actually felt pride in the military and helped with the war efforts. Now we are to be preached at by self indulgent, spoiled actors who are only too happy to self righteously blame their own country for the woes of the world.
But they support the troops.
May 14-18, 2008 were the dates of the GI Film Festival at the Carnegie Institute of Washington, in Washington, D.C. In its second year, the 501c(3) non-profit organization is, according to its web site, the "first film festival in the nation to exclusively celebrate the successes and scrifices of the American military through the medium of film."
Features, documentaries and short films were to be screened. Panel discussions, educational forums and special events were on the schedule.
Brandon Millett is President of the organization. With 15 years experience in media relations as a communications professional, he was doing the little press afforded him in today's not-interested-in-success military stories. Laura A. Law is the Festival Director. She is a veteran with 17 years Army and U.S. Army Reserve service. For the past 6 years she has worked in management for Target Corp, Pizer Inc. and Roche while also acting as President of her own non=profit with the focus on ending sex trafficking.
This year, the GI Film Festival's Spirit Award Recipient Jon Voight and Corporate Patriot Award Recipients Vince and Linda McMahon, Gary Sinise, Robert Duvall and Stephen Baldwin, along with WWE Superstar Ric Flair were honored and presented awards by last year's honoree, Gary Sinise. The GI Spirit Award is "presented to an actor/producer/director who best embodies the spirit of a GI in the creative and philanthropic work." Jon Voight was recognized for his time spent visiting wounded warriors.
Take note, LaLa Land. There's a reason the Bush deranged, military hating films released over the last few months have been box office duds. There was a time when the film industry actually felt pride in the military and helped with the war efforts. Now we are to be preached at by self indulgent, spoiled actors who are only too happy to self righteously blame their own country for the woes of the world.
But they support the troops.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Drivers, Start Your Engines
Memorial Day is Indy 500 Day. Picnics, barbecues and the race. This year's pre-race entertainment includes an address from Indiana University graduate General Victor E. Renuart, Jr., Commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Florence Henderson will sing "God Bless America." Did you know that the Brady mom is a native Hoosier, born in Dale, Indiana?
I'm first generation Southern, having both parents from the state of Indiana and most of my family tree still in the state. My husband is a native Hoosier, his mother still there, too.
I'll be rooting for my girl, Danica, and rolling my eyes as my husband repeats his Indy 500 stories for the billionth time.
Also known as Decoration Day, the day commemorates U.S. men and women who have died in military service to our country. I have memories of a small family cemetery on land owned by my mother's family and the aunts meeting there to decorate the headstones of family members lost in war.
In contrast to his last appearance for testimony on Capitol Hill, General Petraeus was there last week and actually shown a bit of respect from the left side of the aisle. No 'willing suspension of disbelief' or lectures from the naive who believe they know best on how to conduct a ground war. This time, the General who wrote the book on counter-intelligence and who should have been listened to in 2003, appeared and was able to claim success, even to the point of stating he has enough confidence to say he will be able to order more troop drawdowns by September.
Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, chair of the Armed Forces Committee, said "Regardless of one's view of the wisdom of the policy that took us to Iraq in the first place and has kept us there over five years, we owe General Petraeus and General Odierno a debt of gratitude." A backhanded nod to success is better than nothing, I guess.
From blog friend Jo's latest post, I read an interesting post from Jeff Emanuel entitled "Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War". Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has represented his district for almost a quarter of century by bringing home the pork. He is a member of the Financial Services Committee and uses tactics behind the scenes to the betterment of his district.
He now admits the deception of the left in the run up to the 2006 elections when they claimed they would end the war in Iraq if only they were given back the leadership in Congress. "I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we ... the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."
The Republicans knew this and let the left hang themselves with it. Since they took over, time after time the President and the administration has stopped any demands of timetables and stopping funds to the troops. Most voters don't really study issues and so many Americans are just not schooled anymore on the workings of our government that whole segments of voters believed the lies told in campaign speeches. How refreshing to have a bit of truth of the condescension of the Democrats towards their constituency. They were betting on ignorance and were rewarded for it.
"We sort of stretched the facts," he says. "And people ate it up."
Sound familiar?
From his Profile page on his blog: Jeff Emanuel served n the U.S. Air Force from 1999-2004 as a Tactical Air Controller, working as a member of conventional and Joint Special Operations units as a communications expert and precision airstrike controller. His assignments included a year in Korea and combat duty in Iraq, where he was a member of the special operations task force responsible for the rescue of prisoner of war Jessica Lynch, among other missions. He returned to Iraq as an embedded reporter working on the front lines in Baghdad, Salman Pak, Samarra, Tal Afar, Balda, Kirkuk, and elsewhere.
Emanuel earned a degree from the University of Georgia in 2004 in Classics and served as a leadership fellow with the University's Center for International Trade and Security, researching nuclear proliferation and radiological terrorism and editing texts. He also holds a degree in Information Systems Technology (2002).
He is currently a Contributor to MESHNet, a members only forum for discussion of U.S. Strategy in Middle Eastern affairs that falls under the purview of the Institute for Strategic Studies' Middle East Strategy at Harvard project.
Currently an Associate with the Patriot Group in Austin, Texas he has been a nominee for the Eric Breindel Professional Journalism Award and for Cosmopolitan magazine's "Bachelor of the Year." He lives in Austin with his Labrador puppy, Emma.
Good to learn about up and coming patriotic movers and shakers. There is hope for the real change out there.
I'm first generation Southern, having both parents from the state of Indiana and most of my family tree still in the state. My husband is a native Hoosier, his mother still there, too.
I'll be rooting for my girl, Danica, and rolling my eyes as my husband repeats his Indy 500 stories for the billionth time.
Also known as Decoration Day, the day commemorates U.S. men and women who have died in military service to our country. I have memories of a small family cemetery on land owned by my mother's family and the aunts meeting there to decorate the headstones of family members lost in war.
In contrast to his last appearance for testimony on Capitol Hill, General Petraeus was there last week and actually shown a bit of respect from the left side of the aisle. No 'willing suspension of disbelief' or lectures from the naive who believe they know best on how to conduct a ground war. This time, the General who wrote the book on counter-intelligence and who should have been listened to in 2003, appeared and was able to claim success, even to the point of stating he has enough confidence to say he will be able to order more troop drawdowns by September.
Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, chair of the Armed Forces Committee, said "Regardless of one's view of the wisdom of the policy that took us to Iraq in the first place and has kept us there over five years, we owe General Petraeus and General Odierno a debt of gratitude." A backhanded nod to success is better than nothing, I guess.
From blog friend Jo's latest post, I read an interesting post from Jeff Emanuel entitled "Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War". Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has represented his district for almost a quarter of century by bringing home the pork. He is a member of the Financial Services Committee and uses tactics behind the scenes to the betterment of his district.
He now admits the deception of the left in the run up to the 2006 elections when they claimed they would end the war in Iraq if only they were given back the leadership in Congress. "I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we ... the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."
The Republicans knew this and let the left hang themselves with it. Since they took over, time after time the President and the administration has stopped any demands of timetables and stopping funds to the troops. Most voters don't really study issues and so many Americans are just not schooled anymore on the workings of our government that whole segments of voters believed the lies told in campaign speeches. How refreshing to have a bit of truth of the condescension of the Democrats towards their constituency. They were betting on ignorance and were rewarded for it.
"We sort of stretched the facts," he says. "And people ate it up."
Sound familiar?
From his Profile page on his blog: Jeff Emanuel served n the U.S. Air Force from 1999-2004 as a Tactical Air Controller, working as a member of conventional and Joint Special Operations units as a communications expert and precision airstrike controller. His assignments included a year in Korea and combat duty in Iraq, where he was a member of the special operations task force responsible for the rescue of prisoner of war Jessica Lynch, among other missions. He returned to Iraq as an embedded reporter working on the front lines in Baghdad, Salman Pak, Samarra, Tal Afar, Balda, Kirkuk, and elsewhere.
Emanuel earned a degree from the University of Georgia in 2004 in Classics and served as a leadership fellow with the University's Center for International Trade and Security, researching nuclear proliferation and radiological terrorism and editing texts. He also holds a degree in Information Systems Technology (2002).
He is currently a Contributor to MESHNet, a members only forum for discussion of U.S. Strategy in Middle Eastern affairs that falls under the purview of the Institute for Strategic Studies' Middle East Strategy at Harvard project.
Currently an Associate with the Patriot Group in Austin, Texas he has been a nominee for the Eric Breindel Professional Journalism Award and for Cosmopolitan magazine's "Bachelor of the Year." He lives in Austin with his Labrador puppy, Emma.
Good to learn about up and coming patriotic movers and shakers. There is hope for the real change out there.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Mojitas and Bagels
Barack Obama is in Florida telling the Jews to just chill, he'll be their friend when he's in the White House. All that stuff written about him and his peeps? Come on. You know it's just the Republican attack machine. And those stupid people in middle America, clinging to their guns and bibles like they do.
This is truly an interesting little race going on here for the next President of these United States. Barack Obama is setting all kinds of new parameters with which he expects his critics to abide. No criticism on his friends, associates or spiritual advisers. No criticism of his outspoken wife who has her own press opportunities and rallies and the candidate says "whatever Michelle says is the message", according to Katie Couric's film crew that found that quote written on paper as they toured the press shop at Obama campaign headquarters for the April 24th CBS Evening News, according to Tim Graham at NewsBusters. Maybe Obama could claim it wasn't his writing, as he did with the questionnaire that appeared from the past not long ago.
From the television news report: Couric said, "Then there's the press operation, answering questions from reporters, trying to tamp down any controversy, in constant contact with the road while trying to make sure the message of the day survives." This was being said as the camera showed the note from Obama himself.
So, first Obama woos the Cubans and blames McCain and Bush for the failure of the embargoes to make change of the leadership on the Island. Problem is, as his top adviser Susan Rice tries to make McCain out to be a 'flip flopper' (because that's what Kerry was called, you know) and spinning a new position on Cuba. Not so fast, Dr. Rice. Not only are you not effective as a spokesperson, with your nasty finger pointing at McCain (your candidate says his is a 'respectful' campaign) you are just another spinmaster covering up for Obama's missteps. For the claim that in 2000 McCain favored normalization with Cuba and now doesn't, is just wrong. He has always called for free market reforms, political prisoners released and free elections in Cuba. None of that has changed. Rice knows that and she lies for Obama. The Bush policy is the same one that has been in place for decades.
Cuba has to change, not the U.S. I know that is a difficult notion for the candidate of change.
Obama is concerned the Jews in Florida may believe remarks made from supporters and advisers around him. They may assume that the speakers are saying what they really believe. Whether or not Obama likes it, a candidate is scrutinized on the basis of those around him. Rev. Wright is an anti-Semite, a racist, a 'spiritual adviser' who damns America. He was in the pews for over 20 years, a deliberate move to get into the Chicago political machine. His church honored Farakkhan with a lifetime achievement award. Obama was part of Farakkhan's Million Man March campaign.
Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Catholic minister at St. Sabina on Chicago's south side, who is a political activist dressed as a man of the cloth, is a 'spiritual adviser' for Obama. You may know the name originally for his harboring the illegal immigrant from Mexico and using her 8 year old American born son as a publicity prop. It's all about the children. After we use them for political gain and press coverage.
Pfleger was highlighted by Governor Blagojevic's appointment of a Farrakhan aide to serve on a hate-crimes commission. (Let that irony sink in for a minute). This appointee, Sister Claudette, refused to denounce Farrakhan's racist and anti-Semitic remarks so three Jewish members on the commission resigned. According to the article in National Review Online by Sabrina Leigh Schaeffer, the response from Pfleger was "good riddance."
Retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak is a national campaign co-chairman and has made numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks. In a 2003 interview he blamed the Jewish-American community for the failure of the peace process between Israel and Arafat, according to Schaeffer. McPeak remains in place.
Hamas endorsed him for President and Obama was outraged that anyone noticed or commented on that. In 2003, Obama honored Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian critic of Israel and advocate of Palestinian rights, at a celebration which included anti-Israel poetry as entertainment, with a healthy dose of anti-American criticism. Obama waxed on about his long relationship with the Khalidis at the event. He spoke of all the meals shared with Rashid and Mona and Michelle and Barack, and of the effect Rashid had on his political thinking. Yesterday in Miami, when questioned about Khalidi, Obama brushed off any worries by saying his kids went to the same school as the Obama girls and he casually knew him from that contact. Hmm. Where have we heard that? William Ayers ring a bell? And that Rashid is a professor as he had been once, too. Interesting, all these intersections, isn't it.
There is also a connection between the Obamas and Hatem El-Hady, former chairman of Kindhearts for Charitable Human Development, an Islamic organization based in Toledo and shut down in 2006 for raising money for Hamas.
In 2004, President Bush won 24 percent of the Jewish vote. That was up from 2000. He was rewarded for being the most loyal President to the freedom and security of Israel. Obama knows he has not garnered much favor in the Jewish community. McCain, however, is supported quite strongly, especially in Florida.
Actions speak louder than words. In all communities.
This is truly an interesting little race going on here for the next President of these United States. Barack Obama is setting all kinds of new parameters with which he expects his critics to abide. No criticism on his friends, associates or spiritual advisers. No criticism of his outspoken wife who has her own press opportunities and rallies and the candidate says "whatever Michelle says is the message", according to Katie Couric's film crew that found that quote written on paper as they toured the press shop at Obama campaign headquarters for the April 24th CBS Evening News, according to Tim Graham at NewsBusters. Maybe Obama could claim it wasn't his writing, as he did with the questionnaire that appeared from the past not long ago.
From the television news report: Couric said, "Then there's the press operation, answering questions from reporters, trying to tamp down any controversy, in constant contact with the road while trying to make sure the message of the day survives." This was being said as the camera showed the note from Obama himself.
So, first Obama woos the Cubans and blames McCain and Bush for the failure of the embargoes to make change of the leadership on the Island. Problem is, as his top adviser Susan Rice tries to make McCain out to be a 'flip flopper' (because that's what Kerry was called, you know) and spinning a new position on Cuba. Not so fast, Dr. Rice. Not only are you not effective as a spokesperson, with your nasty finger pointing at McCain (your candidate says his is a 'respectful' campaign) you are just another spinmaster covering up for Obama's missteps. For the claim that in 2000 McCain favored normalization with Cuba and now doesn't, is just wrong. He has always called for free market reforms, political prisoners released and free elections in Cuba. None of that has changed. Rice knows that and she lies for Obama. The Bush policy is the same one that has been in place for decades.
Cuba has to change, not the U.S. I know that is a difficult notion for the candidate of change.
Obama is concerned the Jews in Florida may believe remarks made from supporters and advisers around him. They may assume that the speakers are saying what they really believe. Whether or not Obama likes it, a candidate is scrutinized on the basis of those around him. Rev. Wright is an anti-Semite, a racist, a 'spiritual adviser' who damns America. He was in the pews for over 20 years, a deliberate move to get into the Chicago political machine. His church honored Farakkhan with a lifetime achievement award. Obama was part of Farakkhan's Million Man March campaign.
Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Catholic minister at St. Sabina on Chicago's south side, who is a political activist dressed as a man of the cloth, is a 'spiritual adviser' for Obama. You may know the name originally for his harboring the illegal immigrant from Mexico and using her 8 year old American born son as a publicity prop. It's all about the children. After we use them for political gain and press coverage.
Pfleger was highlighted by Governor Blagojevic's appointment of a Farrakhan aide to serve on a hate-crimes commission. (Let that irony sink in for a minute). This appointee, Sister Claudette, refused to denounce Farrakhan's racist and anti-Semitic remarks so three Jewish members on the commission resigned. According to the article in National Review Online by Sabrina Leigh Schaeffer, the response from Pfleger was "good riddance."
Retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak is a national campaign co-chairman and has made numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks. In a 2003 interview he blamed the Jewish-American community for the failure of the peace process between Israel and Arafat, according to Schaeffer. McPeak remains in place.
Hamas endorsed him for President and Obama was outraged that anyone noticed or commented on that. In 2003, Obama honored Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian critic of Israel and advocate of Palestinian rights, at a celebration which included anti-Israel poetry as entertainment, with a healthy dose of anti-American criticism. Obama waxed on about his long relationship with the Khalidis at the event. He spoke of all the meals shared with Rashid and Mona and Michelle and Barack, and of the effect Rashid had on his political thinking. Yesterday in Miami, when questioned about Khalidi, Obama brushed off any worries by saying his kids went to the same school as the Obama girls and he casually knew him from that contact. Hmm. Where have we heard that? William Ayers ring a bell? And that Rashid is a professor as he had been once, too. Interesting, all these intersections, isn't it.
There is also a connection between the Obamas and Hatem El-Hady, former chairman of Kindhearts for Charitable Human Development, an Islamic organization based in Toledo and shut down in 2006 for raising money for Hamas.
In 2004, President Bush won 24 percent of the Jewish vote. That was up from 2000. He was rewarded for being the most loyal President to the freedom and security of Israel. Obama knows he has not garnered much favor in the Jewish community. McCain, however, is supported quite strongly, especially in Florida.
Actions speak louder than words. In all communities.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
McCain Is A Veteran and Demented
From a conference call with reporters, Tom Harkin plants the seeds that John McCain is not capable of making rational decisions, due to the fact he is from a family background of strong military service.
As the son and grandson of admirals, Harkin says his worldview is shaped by the military, and "he has a hard time thinking beyond that." "I think he's trapped in that". He went on for the Iowa reporters, according to The Des Moines Register, "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous." "It's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."
So, the far left of the Democrat party, which is more and more the majority of the party, is now comfortable with announcing John McCain is not capable of making decisions concerning national security because he is from a military background. And, if you volunteered for military service, well, what is wrong with you anyway?
McCain has now been in politics longer than he served in the military. Harkin wants you to know he is a military vet himself so he's justified attacking McCain this way. "I just want to be very clear there's nothing wrong with a career in the military", and he continues, "But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian. And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."
So, in Harkin-world, the candidate must have been drafted, not volunteered, and have some military experience but not too much. How much is too much? That was not specified.
Good thing Eisenhower isn't running this year. Every president in recent history has had military experience, except Bill Clinton.
Harkin is an Obama supporter (surprise!) and this hardly sounds like the warm and fuzzy give change a chance we are the change we've been waiting for, just feel don't think kind of jibberjabber we normally hear. Obama's military experience, since Harkin thinks 'some' is good? None.
Harkin may want to note that McCain is no longer active service, so I think he qualifies as a civilian.
Dr. Tim Johnson, age 72, talking to interviewer Charlie Gibson, age 65, on ABC's World News discussed McCain's health and mental well-being. From NewsBusters, "Dr. Tim Johnson speculated about McCain's health. Gibson wondered about 'psychological damage' from his POW captivity." There's no evidence, but hey, this is network news. No need for accuracy.
Reassuring Gibson, Johnson said, "That Navy psychiatrists monitored McCain 'for many years 'after his release. They found no evidence of any serious problem. And he strongly denies any symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder." Gibson replied," But he's 71 years old. What do the actuarial tables say about a man who's 71 years old?" Johnson editorialized for the Democrats that McCain should live to be 87 years old but: "Much more difficult, of course, to predict any change in mental acuity. At age 71, there's about a 30 percent chance of developing serious memory loss or even dementia."
This is the same Dr. Johnson who said on "Good Morning America" during coverage of Senator Ted Kennedy's brain cancer announcement that the Senator was laudable for his liberal views on reforming health care. "He is a true giant in the field of those of us who care about health care reform. And we want his leadership to continue." "The Clintons are almost heroes in my mind for finally facing up to the terrible problems we have with our current health care system." Back in 1994 Johnson was on record as supporting Hillary's universal health care sham. "So at least from the physicians represented here, you get a 100 percent vote, including mine, for universal coverage."
Kennedy is 76 years old. Memory loss and dementia, Dr. Johnson?
Hey, I hear McCain has a temper.
Where's that Republican attack machine when we need it?
As the son and grandson of admirals, Harkin says his worldview is shaped by the military, and "he has a hard time thinking beyond that." "I think he's trapped in that". He went on for the Iowa reporters, according to The Des Moines Register, "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous." "It's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."
So, the far left of the Democrat party, which is more and more the majority of the party, is now comfortable with announcing John McCain is not capable of making decisions concerning national security because he is from a military background. And, if you volunteered for military service, well, what is wrong with you anyway?
McCain has now been in politics longer than he served in the military. Harkin wants you to know he is a military vet himself so he's justified attacking McCain this way. "I just want to be very clear there's nothing wrong with a career in the military", and he continues, "But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian. And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."
So, in Harkin-world, the candidate must have been drafted, not volunteered, and have some military experience but not too much. How much is too much? That was not specified.
Good thing Eisenhower isn't running this year. Every president in recent history has had military experience, except Bill Clinton.
Harkin is an Obama supporter (surprise!) and this hardly sounds like the warm and fuzzy give change a chance we are the change we've been waiting for, just feel don't think kind of jibberjabber we normally hear. Obama's military experience, since Harkin thinks 'some' is good? None.
Harkin may want to note that McCain is no longer active service, so I think he qualifies as a civilian.
Dr. Tim Johnson, age 72, talking to interviewer Charlie Gibson, age 65, on ABC's World News discussed McCain's health and mental well-being. From NewsBusters, "Dr. Tim Johnson speculated about McCain's health. Gibson wondered about 'psychological damage' from his POW captivity." There's no evidence, but hey, this is network news. No need for accuracy.
Reassuring Gibson, Johnson said, "That Navy psychiatrists monitored McCain 'for many years 'after his release. They found no evidence of any serious problem. And he strongly denies any symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder." Gibson replied," But he's 71 years old. What do the actuarial tables say about a man who's 71 years old?" Johnson editorialized for the Democrats that McCain should live to be 87 years old but: "Much more difficult, of course, to predict any change in mental acuity. At age 71, there's about a 30 percent chance of developing serious memory loss or even dementia."
This is the same Dr. Johnson who said on "Good Morning America" during coverage of Senator Ted Kennedy's brain cancer announcement that the Senator was laudable for his liberal views on reforming health care. "He is a true giant in the field of those of us who care about health care reform. And we want his leadership to continue." "The Clintons are almost heroes in my mind for finally facing up to the terrible problems we have with our current health care system." Back in 1994 Johnson was on record as supporting Hillary's universal health care sham. "So at least from the physicians represented here, you get a 100 percent vote, including mine, for universal coverage."
Kennedy is 76 years old. Memory loss and dementia, Dr. Johnson?
Hey, I hear McCain has a temper.
Where's that Republican attack machine when we need it?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Stark Raving Crazy
Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) has once again embarrassed himself and his constituents if they caught his latest looniness. As the vote on the war supplemental spending bill in the House was on the floor, Stark noticed 20 flag rank Army officers sitting in the Gallery watching the debate and vote. They observed for about two hours. According to the Weekly Standard, Stark said, "At a time when our nation is at war, our troops are over-extended, and the Administration is literally asking for emergency military spending, what good to the "war on terror" is having US Generals and other top ranked officers - who were likely accompanied by staff and escorted by their chauffeurs - spending hours sitting in the gallery of the House of Representatives?" "Please provide for me the name, rank, branch, and duties of each of these officers, as well as the number of additional staff and drivers that were used to facilitate their attendance yesterday. I would like this information by Monday, May 19th."
So, who were these people in question by the anti-war, nasty Congressman from California? A class from the Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Did Stark apologize for his hatred, and bullying screed? No. He issued a statement, as the cowards do : "If these officers were hoping for a lesson in how Congress ought to work, then perhaps the Iraq supplemental wasn't the best debate for them to witness." What an arrogant ass. While he throws his idiocy around, he'll also tell them what they should be watching.
The funding has been held up. No surprise with a Democrat controlled Congress who likes to make the war in Iraq and Afghanistan a political football instead of pulling together for the sake of the troops. Secretary of Defense Gates said before the Senate Appropriations Committee recently, "After June 15, we will run out of funds in the account to pay soldiers, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan." "Around July 5, O&M funds across the services will run out, starting with the Army. This may result in civilian furloughs, limits on training, and curbing family support activities."
Senate Majority Leader (the term leader used lightly here) said that a funding bill for the war in Iraq is not likely before the Memorial Day recess. Don't want to actually get any work done that might support those troops they claim to support or let it interrupt a few vacation days.
Where's all the praise from the we-support-the-troops Democrat leadership over the victory in Sadr City recently performed by the Iraqi troops? The ones trained by the American and coalition troops. The ones the Democrats keep bitching about that aren't trained and taking over quickly enough? And that al-Maliki has camped out in Mosul as the Iraqi troops finish taking over there, too? No, no. In an election year, we must yammer about failed policies and neo-cons. No recognition when recognition is due. That would be what? Oh yeah. Supporting the troops.
So, who were these people in question by the anti-war, nasty Congressman from California? A class from the Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Did Stark apologize for his hatred, and bullying screed? No. He issued a statement, as the cowards do : "If these officers were hoping for a lesson in how Congress ought to work, then perhaps the Iraq supplemental wasn't the best debate for them to witness." What an arrogant ass. While he throws his idiocy around, he'll also tell them what they should be watching.
The funding has been held up. No surprise with a Democrat controlled Congress who likes to make the war in Iraq and Afghanistan a political football instead of pulling together for the sake of the troops. Secretary of Defense Gates said before the Senate Appropriations Committee recently, "After June 15, we will run out of funds in the account to pay soldiers, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan." "Around July 5, O&M funds across the services will run out, starting with the Army. This may result in civilian furloughs, limits on training, and curbing family support activities."
Senate Majority Leader (the term leader used lightly here) said that a funding bill for the war in Iraq is not likely before the Memorial Day recess. Don't want to actually get any work done that might support those troops they claim to support or let it interrupt a few vacation days.
Where's all the praise from the we-support-the-troops Democrat leadership over the victory in Sadr City recently performed by the Iraqi troops? The ones trained by the American and coalition troops. The ones the Democrats keep bitching about that aren't trained and taking over quickly enough? And that al-Maliki has camped out in Mosul as the Iraqi troops finish taking over there, too? No, no. In an election year, we must yammer about failed policies and neo-cons. No recognition when recognition is due. That would be what? Oh yeah. Supporting the troops.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Who's Your Daddy?
"We can't drive our SUV's, and eat as much as we want, and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times - and then just expect that other countries are going to say ok," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
Ah, back to the past. Back to John Kerry's 'global test' theory. "You have to do it in a way that passes the test--that passes the global test--where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Then, it'll be back to the further back past. It'll be Jimmy Carter's national malaise. I can't wait. Stop complaining and toss on a sweater, you selfish American. Reaping the fruits of your labor? Bah. It's all going to D.C. as taxes on your success anyway. And all those green jobs that will appear, poof, right out of the air, paid for by tax money. And to Al Gore's investment portfolio stocks.
Barack Obama wants to be your daddy. He'll find out how much you can eat and what car you can drive and what temperature your house can be after he polls the nations of the world. All on the premise that climate change is curable if we'll just go back to pre-Industrial Revolution productivity. This is just more of the arrogance Obama brings to politics. How arrogant to think nature and the climate will be 'saved' by political demands.
Ah, back to the past. Back to John Kerry's 'global test' theory. "You have to do it in a way that passes the test--that passes the global test--where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Then, it'll be back to the further back past. It'll be Jimmy Carter's national malaise. I can't wait. Stop complaining and toss on a sweater, you selfish American. Reaping the fruits of your labor? Bah. It's all going to D.C. as taxes on your success anyway. And all those green jobs that will appear, poof, right out of the air, paid for by tax money. And to Al Gore's investment portfolio stocks.
Barack Obama wants to be your daddy. He'll find out how much you can eat and what car you can drive and what temperature your house can be after he polls the nations of the world. All on the premise that climate change is curable if we'll just go back to pre-Industrial Revolution productivity. This is just more of the arrogance Obama brings to politics. How arrogant to think nature and the climate will be 'saved' by political demands.
"Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute has actually sat down and crunched the numbers and found that Obama's 80% reduction from 1990 levels means that in 2050 we cannot emit more than one billion tons of CO2. The last time U.S. emissions were that low, Hayward estimates from historical energy data, was in 1910." That from Investor's Business Daily. Hayward says that per capita carbon emissions would have to fall to just 2.5 tons in order to reach Obama's goal. Nations relatively independent of fossil fuels like France (nuclear) and Switzerland (hydroelectric) still emit 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita. What Obama sets as a goal for America is at the level of a Belize or a Somalia."
Leading by example is a worthy ambition. Obama, in his crack the whip mode however, fails to acknowledge that America already leads the world in controlling emissions of greenhouse gas emissions and on energy efficiency. America exceeds the European Union, for example, who are Kyoto signatories.
Blaming America first is not always in line with the facts.
Who's your daddy? We need a real grown up with solutions, not platitudes and pie in the sky. Or, political pandering to the crunchy granola crowd in Oregon.
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Lord of Perpetual Victimhood
The Lexington Herald-Leader ran an interesting article on Obama's efforts in the state of Kentucky for the upcoming Tuesday primary. Hillary is expected to win big, as she did in West Virginia so Obama is not exerting much energy to campaign in the state.
Not to worry, though, you Kentucky voters. He'll see you later as he runs for President in the general election. He said, "When we're able to campaign in a place like Iowa for several months and I can visit and talk to people individually, I do very well. That's harder to do at this stage in the campaign." Then to back his decision, he blamed Fox News for "disseminating rumors about him and said that that and e-mails filled with misinformation that have been "systematically" dispersed have hurt him in Kentucky."
Rick Moran writing at his blog, Rightwing Nuthouse, has a good post about this continued whining from the man who hopes to be the next leader of the free world. Moran is a Chicago-area blogger and informed voice on the politics of the city. Head over there and check it out.
I don't like whining in children and I certainly don't like whining in adults. But it does fit a pattern of action from the Obama camp, doesn't it. Now, this morning he and Michelle were doing the usual puff piece on a morning news chat show and he says Michelle is off-limits for public criticism. Evidently the Tennessee GOP has an ad running that quotes Michelle and that is just not acceptable to the up and coming next American president. He calls it 'snippets' as he always does when quotes are used that reflect badly on him and his people around him.
I understand a husband coming to the defense of a wife. I'd expect it, as a matter of fact. However, when it is the political arena, when the spouse is billed as 'The Closer' by the campaign, when the spouse is an Ivy League trained lawyer, when the spouse draws her own crowds at her very own events, then she is to be held accountable, too.
She knows it. Obama knows it. But, when her remarks, from the very beginning of his campaign, have offended and angered voters - those in normal lives, in regular communities all across the country - her bitterness and anger is open for criticism. She began the campaign with statements of her opinion that Barack could be shot just going to the gas station, because he's a black man in America. Obama was given special secret service protection right away, to ward off racist threats, we were told. OK. Then Michelle was taped saying for the very first time in her life she is really proud of her country. And why is that, Michelle? She said it wasn't only because Barack is doing well, but that's exactly what the reason is. Then the media willfully did their own preferred 'snippet' of the speech and used a later quote of the first quote where Michelle takes out the 'really' adjective of her pride in America. I suppose that softens her vanity.
The wife of the post-racial candidate is overheard saying she needs more white people up on stage with her. Yes, it is normal for campaigns to stage the look of the crowd. But, aren't these folks different? They say they are. Michelle says a focus on an issue doesn't help her children. Her children. Not the children of America, which she added later.
She complained, intentionally or not, that it's hard making it out there. What with private dance lessons and summer camps for the kids, paying back student loans to those Ivy League schools and all that entails. She said she asked Barack, where's the money, if he's related along the line to Dick Cheney. Where's the money.
Now she's hurt, she's being criticised. She knew exactly what she was doing all along. She is a professional woman in Chicago, earning big bucks and sitting on corporate boards (while her husband bashes lobbyists) and like it or not, she is a woman of privilege. If she was not striving for her lifestyle, then why did she pursue the paths she pursued all along? The school choices, the career choices, the choice of husband? I know it is the left's desire to continue with the victimhood line of thought but for her it was personal choice. Grow up.
The very fact that she and her husband live the lives they do today is the counter argument to her victimhood whining. Despite what she says, America is not a 'mean country', as she also told an audience on the campaign trail.
So, Obama is whining about a new subject today. His wife is being criticised. It's those mean spirited Republicans. They must be bitter, gun toting, Bible carrying, typical white people down there in Tennessee. He implies if people aren't voting for him then they must be racists. Never mind they may just not agree with his political philosophy and it has nothing to do with skin color. Hey, he's a black man in America.
Our Lord of Perpetual Victimhood.
When Obama is given pass after pass in the media, does he notice? Probably not. I think he is so self satisfied that he just expects such treatment and that is why he whines when it doesn't happen his way. He calls a reporter 'sweetie' and the media brushes it off. Can you imagine if McCain said that? He'd be a senile old pervert. Obama said in recent remarks about Bush's speech in Israel that Bush called him 'a appeaser' when the proper grammar was 'an appeaser'. When Bush does that sort of thing, well, he's stupid. Bush's Yale and Harvard education doesn't matter in the world of the smugness of the left.
Where was the outrage from Obama when Bush and his family have been attacked on the most personal of levels? We have been told for more than 7 years that Bush, his wife and his daughters are fair game. The level of hatred aimed at the Bush family hasn't been seen in public discourse, certainly not in my lifetime.
The Obama campaign, led by the candidate, has put Michelle out there as a surrogate of the candidate. She has been billed as intelligent, strong, out-spoken, and fiercely supportive of her husband. To cry victim now is ridiculous. It is her husband, after all, who states that words matter, remember?
Americans expect a whole lot better of their next First Lady.
Not to worry, though, you Kentucky voters. He'll see you later as he runs for President in the general election. He said, "When we're able to campaign in a place like Iowa for several months and I can visit and talk to people individually, I do very well. That's harder to do at this stage in the campaign." Then to back his decision, he blamed Fox News for "disseminating rumors about him and said that that and e-mails filled with misinformation that have been "systematically" dispersed have hurt him in Kentucky."
Rick Moran writing at his blog, Rightwing Nuthouse, has a good post about this continued whining from the man who hopes to be the next leader of the free world. Moran is a Chicago-area blogger and informed voice on the politics of the city. Head over there and check it out.
I don't like whining in children and I certainly don't like whining in adults. But it does fit a pattern of action from the Obama camp, doesn't it. Now, this morning he and Michelle were doing the usual puff piece on a morning news chat show and he says Michelle is off-limits for public criticism. Evidently the Tennessee GOP has an ad running that quotes Michelle and that is just not acceptable to the up and coming next American president. He calls it 'snippets' as he always does when quotes are used that reflect badly on him and his people around him.
I understand a husband coming to the defense of a wife. I'd expect it, as a matter of fact. However, when it is the political arena, when the spouse is billed as 'The Closer' by the campaign, when the spouse is an Ivy League trained lawyer, when the spouse draws her own crowds at her very own events, then she is to be held accountable, too.
She knows it. Obama knows it. But, when her remarks, from the very beginning of his campaign, have offended and angered voters - those in normal lives, in regular communities all across the country - her bitterness and anger is open for criticism. She began the campaign with statements of her opinion that Barack could be shot just going to the gas station, because he's a black man in America. Obama was given special secret service protection right away, to ward off racist threats, we were told. OK. Then Michelle was taped saying for the very first time in her life she is really proud of her country. And why is that, Michelle? She said it wasn't only because Barack is doing well, but that's exactly what the reason is. Then the media willfully did their own preferred 'snippet' of the speech and used a later quote of the first quote where Michelle takes out the 'really' adjective of her pride in America. I suppose that softens her vanity.
The wife of the post-racial candidate is overheard saying she needs more white people up on stage with her. Yes, it is normal for campaigns to stage the look of the crowd. But, aren't these folks different? They say they are. Michelle says a focus on an issue doesn't help her children. Her children. Not the children of America, which she added later.
She complained, intentionally or not, that it's hard making it out there. What with private dance lessons and summer camps for the kids, paying back student loans to those Ivy League schools and all that entails. She said she asked Barack, where's the money, if he's related along the line to Dick Cheney. Where's the money.
Now she's hurt, she's being criticised. She knew exactly what she was doing all along. She is a professional woman in Chicago, earning big bucks and sitting on corporate boards (while her husband bashes lobbyists) and like it or not, she is a woman of privilege. If she was not striving for her lifestyle, then why did she pursue the paths she pursued all along? The school choices, the career choices, the choice of husband? I know it is the left's desire to continue with the victimhood line of thought but for her it was personal choice. Grow up.
The very fact that she and her husband live the lives they do today is the counter argument to her victimhood whining. Despite what she says, America is not a 'mean country', as she also told an audience on the campaign trail.
So, Obama is whining about a new subject today. His wife is being criticised. It's those mean spirited Republicans. They must be bitter, gun toting, Bible carrying, typical white people down there in Tennessee. He implies if people aren't voting for him then they must be racists. Never mind they may just not agree with his political philosophy and it has nothing to do with skin color. Hey, he's a black man in America.
Our Lord of Perpetual Victimhood.
When Obama is given pass after pass in the media, does he notice? Probably not. I think he is so self satisfied that he just expects such treatment and that is why he whines when it doesn't happen his way. He calls a reporter 'sweetie' and the media brushes it off. Can you imagine if McCain said that? He'd be a senile old pervert. Obama said in recent remarks about Bush's speech in Israel that Bush called him 'a appeaser' when the proper grammar was 'an appeaser'. When Bush does that sort of thing, well, he's stupid. Bush's Yale and Harvard education doesn't matter in the world of the smugness of the left.
Where was the outrage from Obama when Bush and his family have been attacked on the most personal of levels? We have been told for more than 7 years that Bush, his wife and his daughters are fair game. The level of hatred aimed at the Bush family hasn't been seen in public discourse, certainly not in my lifetime.
The Obama campaign, led by the candidate, has put Michelle out there as a surrogate of the candidate. She has been billed as intelligent, strong, out-spoken, and fiercely supportive of her husband. To cry victim now is ridiculous. It is her husband, after all, who states that words matter, remember?
Americans expect a whole lot better of their next First Lady.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Timely Recognition
Do you know who should have won the Noble Peace Prize in 2007, instead of the joke that was the awarding to Al Gore? Irena Sendlerowa. You likely have never heard of Irena Sendlerowa. She died Monday in Warsaw. She was 98 years old.
She saved more than 2,500 lives during the Nazi occupation of Poland. A Catholic, Irena suffered horrific torture and risked her own life to save the lives of Jewish children during the certain death of the Holocaust. An organized Polish underground had formed the "Zegota" and Irena was a member. She posed as a nurse and, along with 20 other Poles, smuggle 2,500 Jewish children out of the ghetto of Warsaw.
The Poles gave the children Christian names and put them with Polish families as well as into orphanages and convents. The children were smuggled out to safety in ambulances, coffins, sacks and through the sewers and tunnels of Warsaw.
Sendlerowa was arrested by the Germans in 1943. She would tell them nothing, despite the torture of both broken legs and feet. That was real torture in hopes of getting the names of her helpers and the location of the children, not the alleged tortures of today's ACLU supporters.
She bribed a guard and was able to escape her death sentence. She went on to continue her work until the end of the war.
A woman who never sought recognition, she was honored in 1965 by Yad Vasem, Israel's Holocaust memorial. The Communists refused to allow her to travel to accept the award. She received the Order of the White Eagle, Poland's highest civilian decoration in 2007. The same year she was nominated to win the Noble Peace Prize and supported mightily by Polish President Lech Kazynski. Instead of making up a reason to fawn over the phony science of Al Gore, a man neither intellectual nor brave, the Prize Committee should have disavowed politics and awarded a true hero. Yes, Al Gore went to service during Vietnam, but he did so with a typewriter and with Secret Service protection at the insistence of his Senator father. That's a different kind of 'bravery'.
"Every child saved with my help and the help of all the wonderful secret messengers, who today are no longer living, is the justification of my existence on this earth, and not a title to glory."
At a time when Barack Obama brags on his campaign web site that he is the only candidate to promise to sit down with any rogue nation's leader, without preconditions, Irena's story is particularly timely. At a time when ideas on torture are a political football, Irena's story is particularly timely.
A new kind of Hollywood actor, and a part time musician, Gary Sinise and his "Lt. Dan Band" performed to a standing room only crowd in the courtyard of the Pentagon Friday. It was billed as "Rocking at the Pentagon" and it was in honor of the 4th Annual America Supports You Military Tribute Concert, part of Military Appreciation Month. The concert was also televised live to the troops overseas. The Lt. Dan reference dates back to Sinise's role in the movie, "Forrest Gump".
Soldiers, family members, civilians and veterans packed the courtyard for the concert. The music was a mix of rock, pop, and country music. Clapping, arm waving and feet tapping on the ground served as audience participation.
"It is very, very important that you know you are appreciated and that we're grateful and that we're not going to forget the sacrifices that you and your families make for our nation," he said. "We want everybody who is watching this around the world to know that we're here supporting you. We believe in you. We are depending on you. You are our volunteer defenders, and we never take that for granted."
Sinise went into the crowd as the end of the concert approached, dancing with the crowd. As he continued playing, he sat next to Marine Lance Cpl. Jeremy Stengel who was in the front row and asked how his recovery was going. "I thought it was awesome. I thought it was amazing," Stengel said. "It's a break for us to get away from the hospital scene. We're at the hospital going through therapy day in and day out. We kind of need a break."
Sinise played a bit of air guitar with Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Rene Rubiella, a member of the 920th Rescue Wing at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. He was at the Pentagon for the first time, to receive the President's Volunteer Service Award. He has volunteered for multiple tours of Iraq. "It's people like Gary that turn around and make us feel that we are appreciated and that we are loved and that there is a commitment from our nation that we are not forgotten," Rubiella said. "I am so grateful that people take the time to commit, to volunteer their time and put on these events for our entertainment. I had a ball," he said. "It just means the world to you. It reaches your heart." "I just think it's great what Gary does. I think he's a true patriot", said Army Lt. Col. Scott Turner. "I'm very hopeful that he's reflective of all the men and women of the nation. And it's just great that he would take his time to come out and support the troops."
Maybe Barack Obama could explain his thoughts on talking to Halocaust deniers and the leader of the nation sending bombs and rockets into Iraq to kill our soldiers. And the claims of the appeasement crowd that we are not safer now? No attacks on our soil since 9/11/2001. Period.
She saved more than 2,500 lives during the Nazi occupation of Poland. A Catholic, Irena suffered horrific torture and risked her own life to save the lives of Jewish children during the certain death of the Holocaust. An organized Polish underground had formed the "Zegota" and Irena was a member. She posed as a nurse and, along with 20 other Poles, smuggle 2,500 Jewish children out of the ghetto of Warsaw.
The Poles gave the children Christian names and put them with Polish families as well as into orphanages and convents. The children were smuggled out to safety in ambulances, coffins, sacks and through the sewers and tunnels of Warsaw.
Sendlerowa was arrested by the Germans in 1943. She would tell them nothing, despite the torture of both broken legs and feet. That was real torture in hopes of getting the names of her helpers and the location of the children, not the alleged tortures of today's ACLU supporters.
She bribed a guard and was able to escape her death sentence. She went on to continue her work until the end of the war.
A woman who never sought recognition, she was honored in 1965 by Yad Vasem, Israel's Holocaust memorial. The Communists refused to allow her to travel to accept the award. She received the Order of the White Eagle, Poland's highest civilian decoration in 2007. The same year she was nominated to win the Noble Peace Prize and supported mightily by Polish President Lech Kazynski. Instead of making up a reason to fawn over the phony science of Al Gore, a man neither intellectual nor brave, the Prize Committee should have disavowed politics and awarded a true hero. Yes, Al Gore went to service during Vietnam, but he did so with a typewriter and with Secret Service protection at the insistence of his Senator father. That's a different kind of 'bravery'.
"Every child saved with my help and the help of all the wonderful secret messengers, who today are no longer living, is the justification of my existence on this earth, and not a title to glory."
At a time when Barack Obama brags on his campaign web site that he is the only candidate to promise to sit down with any rogue nation's leader, without preconditions, Irena's story is particularly timely. At a time when ideas on torture are a political football, Irena's story is particularly timely.
A new kind of Hollywood actor, and a part time musician, Gary Sinise and his "Lt. Dan Band" performed to a standing room only crowd in the courtyard of the Pentagon Friday. It was billed as "Rocking at the Pentagon" and it was in honor of the 4th Annual America Supports You Military Tribute Concert, part of Military Appreciation Month. The concert was also televised live to the troops overseas. The Lt. Dan reference dates back to Sinise's role in the movie, "Forrest Gump".
Soldiers, family members, civilians and veterans packed the courtyard for the concert. The music was a mix of rock, pop, and country music. Clapping, arm waving and feet tapping on the ground served as audience participation.
"It is very, very important that you know you are appreciated and that we're grateful and that we're not going to forget the sacrifices that you and your families make for our nation," he said. "We want everybody who is watching this around the world to know that we're here supporting you. We believe in you. We are depending on you. You are our volunteer defenders, and we never take that for granted."
Sinise went into the crowd as the end of the concert approached, dancing with the crowd. As he continued playing, he sat next to Marine Lance Cpl. Jeremy Stengel who was in the front row and asked how his recovery was going. "I thought it was awesome. I thought it was amazing," Stengel said. "It's a break for us to get away from the hospital scene. We're at the hospital going through therapy day in and day out. We kind of need a break."
Sinise played a bit of air guitar with Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Rene Rubiella, a member of the 920th Rescue Wing at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. He was at the Pentagon for the first time, to receive the President's Volunteer Service Award. He has volunteered for multiple tours of Iraq. "It's people like Gary that turn around and make us feel that we are appreciated and that we are loved and that there is a commitment from our nation that we are not forgotten," Rubiella said. "I am so grateful that people take the time to commit, to volunteer their time and put on these events for our entertainment. I had a ball," he said. "It just means the world to you. It reaches your heart." "I just think it's great what Gary does. I think he's a true patriot", said Army Lt. Col. Scott Turner. "I'm very hopeful that he's reflective of all the men and women of the nation. And it's just great that he would take his time to come out and support the troops."
Maybe Barack Obama could explain his thoughts on talking to Halocaust deniers and the leader of the nation sending bombs and rockets into Iraq to kill our soldiers. And the claims of the appeasement crowd that we are not safer now? No attacks on our soil since 9/11/2001. Period.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Good Luck to You, Senator
A key characteristic of a leader is trustworthiness. How are we to follow a person, a leader, if the person is not to be trusted? A person is only as good as his/her word.
Like his policies or not, President Bush is solid on being taken at his word. A citizen may not agree with the President, but no one doubts he will carry through on what he says is his intention.
Let's hold Barack Obama to the same standard. An incident that has been in the back of my mind for quite some time now has surfaced again, this being an election cycle and all, and Obama the presumed nominee of the Democrats. Plus it has to do with an interaction between Obama and John McCain, the nominee of the Republicans.
The incident I remember, vaguely, was of McCain being upset with Obama for Obama going back on his word to McCain on lobbying reform legislation. You may notice now that Obama is running for President and has no legislative leadership of which to point, he and his minions claim he pushed through ethics reform. Back in February, 2006, the Lieberman, Nelson, McCain bipartisan bill on lobbying reform was introduced after members of both parties were included in meetings on the legislation. Remember, this is when the Republicans still controlled the Senate. And, remember, too, that McCain was catching flak for working so consistently with Democrats in a bipartisan way to get legislation through the Senate.
Obama privately told McCain that he wanted to work with the bipartisan group. He told McCain that despite pressure from the likes of Harry Reid, he (Obama) wanted to be a part of the bipartisan effort. Obama approached McCain, remember, not the other way around, so McCain thought Obama was sincere. At the last minute, Obama backed out of his commitment of support. I remember the tension between the two when both walked into a committee meeting, a committee they both sit on. Obama and McCain shook hands and went on to their seats. Obviously the situation was known to the body of the Senate.
McCain sent a letter to Obama explaining that Obama could rest assured that McCain would never again make the mistake of taking him at his word. For all of Obama's claims of working together in a bipartisan way, it is all a ruse. He has no such history in the Senate and there is no reason to believe he would behave any differently in the Oval Office.
Bush, as Governor of Texas, was known for working with Democrats in the state legislature. The Lt. Governor in Bush's first term was a Democrat and the two were very close friends besides working together at the capitol. The friendship developed as they worked together. Throughout Bush's terms as President he, too, catches static for working too closely with Democrats for many Republicans. No history of that with Obama.
A copy of the letter from McCain to Obama was referenced and available through American Thinker. The letter ends: "Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman, and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and , most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings."
"As I noted, I initially believed you shard that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator."
Ouch.
Another example I came across recently about Obama's two faces is contained in The Evangelical President. Bill Sammon writes "One of the top candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination was Obama, who first met Bush in 2005, when the Illinois liberal and other senators were invited to the White House to hear the president discuss his second-term agenda. Bush took the opportunity to pull Obama aside and give him some friendly advice. Noting the newly minted senator's enormous popularity, Bush cautioned that it would make him a target for rivals on both sides of the aisle. Obama thanked Bush for the advice and later recounted the episode in a memoir, The Audacity of Hope. But in the same passage, Obama described Bush as a zealot whose demeanor was downright frightening when he discussed his second-term agenda." "Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."
Sammon continues: "When I quoted from this passage to Bush, the president seemed irritated to learn he had been trashed by the senator he had counseled. "I thought I was actually showing some kindness," Bush told me indignantly. "And out of that he came with this belief?" The president added with a bit of a scowl, "He doesn't know me very well."
The President could have ignored the Freshman senator or just shook his hand and said a quick hello. No good deed goes unpunished, in some quarters. The Senator from the south side of Illinois was brazen enough to write not one but two books all about himself by the time he was in his early 40's. It is obvious these books are just more of the very calculated path to the Oval Office he pursues. Like joining the church in Chicago to get into the Chicago political machine. Like his running for higher office every cycle. Like his snooty, arrogant stance with his nose in the air.
I listened to an interview this morning with Mark Helprin , who has a new book out. He is employed by Claremont Institute. He was asked about his opinion of Obama's capability as leader of the free world in foreign policy. He says Obama is a typical leftist who will not face challenges but turn his back on them. He thinks, however, McCain has strength of conviction in his bones.
Helprin was raised by a mother who was a member of the Communist party. She instilled in Helprin the belief that America is capable of any kind of change. Helprin notes change goes both ways.
And, change is not policy. It's a word. Like Michelle Obama says, don't think, just feel.
Good luck to you, Senator Obama. You'll be facing John McCain, not George W. Bush in November. The contrast couldn't be clearer. Look down your nose at that.
Like his policies or not, President Bush is solid on being taken at his word. A citizen may not agree with the President, but no one doubts he will carry through on what he says is his intention.
Let's hold Barack Obama to the same standard. An incident that has been in the back of my mind for quite some time now has surfaced again, this being an election cycle and all, and Obama the presumed nominee of the Democrats. Plus it has to do with an interaction between Obama and John McCain, the nominee of the Republicans.
The incident I remember, vaguely, was of McCain being upset with Obama for Obama going back on his word to McCain on lobbying reform legislation. You may notice now that Obama is running for President and has no legislative leadership of which to point, he and his minions claim he pushed through ethics reform. Back in February, 2006, the Lieberman, Nelson, McCain bipartisan bill on lobbying reform was introduced after members of both parties were included in meetings on the legislation. Remember, this is when the Republicans still controlled the Senate. And, remember, too, that McCain was catching flak for working so consistently with Democrats in a bipartisan way to get legislation through the Senate.
Obama privately told McCain that he wanted to work with the bipartisan group. He told McCain that despite pressure from the likes of Harry Reid, he (Obama) wanted to be a part of the bipartisan effort. Obama approached McCain, remember, not the other way around, so McCain thought Obama was sincere. At the last minute, Obama backed out of his commitment of support. I remember the tension between the two when both walked into a committee meeting, a committee they both sit on. Obama and McCain shook hands and went on to their seats. Obviously the situation was known to the body of the Senate.
McCain sent a letter to Obama explaining that Obama could rest assured that McCain would never again make the mistake of taking him at his word. For all of Obama's claims of working together in a bipartisan way, it is all a ruse. He has no such history in the Senate and there is no reason to believe he would behave any differently in the Oval Office.
Bush, as Governor of Texas, was known for working with Democrats in the state legislature. The Lt. Governor in Bush's first term was a Democrat and the two were very close friends besides working together at the capitol. The friendship developed as they worked together. Throughout Bush's terms as President he, too, catches static for working too closely with Democrats for many Republicans. No history of that with Obama.
A copy of the letter from McCain to Obama was referenced and available through American Thinker. The letter ends: "Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman, and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and , most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings."
"As I noted, I initially believed you shard that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator."
Ouch.
Another example I came across recently about Obama's two faces is contained in The Evangelical President. Bill Sammon writes "One of the top candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination was Obama, who first met Bush in 2005, when the Illinois liberal and other senators were invited to the White House to hear the president discuss his second-term agenda. Bush took the opportunity to pull Obama aside and give him some friendly advice. Noting the newly minted senator's enormous popularity, Bush cautioned that it would make him a target for rivals on both sides of the aisle. Obama thanked Bush for the advice and later recounted the episode in a memoir, The Audacity of Hope. But in the same passage, Obama described Bush as a zealot whose demeanor was downright frightening when he discussed his second-term agenda." "Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."
Sammon continues: "When I quoted from this passage to Bush, the president seemed irritated to learn he had been trashed by the senator he had counseled. "I thought I was actually showing some kindness," Bush told me indignantly. "And out of that he came with this belief?" The president added with a bit of a scowl, "He doesn't know me very well."
The President could have ignored the Freshman senator or just shook his hand and said a quick hello. No good deed goes unpunished, in some quarters. The Senator from the south side of Illinois was brazen enough to write not one but two books all about himself by the time he was in his early 40's. It is obvious these books are just more of the very calculated path to the Oval Office he pursues. Like joining the church in Chicago to get into the Chicago political machine. Like his running for higher office every cycle. Like his snooty, arrogant stance with his nose in the air.
I listened to an interview this morning with Mark Helprin , who has a new book out. He is employed by Claremont Institute. He was asked about his opinion of Obama's capability as leader of the free world in foreign policy. He says Obama is a typical leftist who will not face challenges but turn his back on them. He thinks, however, McCain has strength of conviction in his bones.
Helprin was raised by a mother who was a member of the Communist party. She instilled in Helprin the belief that America is capable of any kind of change. Helprin notes change goes both ways.
And, change is not policy. It's a word. Like Michelle Obama says, don't think, just feel.
Good luck to you, Senator Obama. You'll be facing John McCain, not George W. Bush in November. The contrast couldn't be clearer. Look down your nose at that.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
President Bush at the Knesset
Appeasers, it seems, don't like to be called appeasers. You would think this is a new criticism of the far left in this country. The far left is squealing like little stuck piggies all over the television today. Seems a certain campaign has a guilty conscience and thinks everything is all about him. But, why wouldn't he? The national media tells him it is every day.
The best one? Nancy Pelosi claims the remarks from President Bush's speech to the Knesset were not becoming of the Office of the President. That was priceless. You remember it was Pelosi that hightailed it to Damascus as soon as she was sworn in as Speaker of the House and met with Junior Assad, despite her State Department asking her not to, don't you? And what did it produce? Israel bitch slapped her and said she misrepresented them to Assad. Welcome to prime time, Speaker Pelosi.
Susan Rice was all over television, justifying Obama's foreign policy decision to meet with leaders of the terrorist nations, like Iran in particular, without pre-conditions, as his own web site clearly states. Susan Rice criticized the Bush administration for talking to North Korea but not to Iran. Susan Rice criticized the Bush Administration for talking to Sudan but not Syria.
Did Susan Rice get the memo that the Bush administration has sent diplomatic teams to Iran, quietly and professionally, to open dialogue? Several times. There is a big difference, however, in sending diplomats to do the job for which they are trained and that of setting up meetings at the Presidential level without any pre-conditions. You remember Rice from her days with Maddie Albright and the whole party like it's 1999 in North Korea, don't you? And, that ended how? This administration - that of the failed policies of Bush, according to the Obamabots, has made progress by demanding 6 party talks with North Korea and, again, using diplomats.
As I listened to President Bush's speech to the Knesset, where leaders and dignitaries, Israeli and American, were gathered to mark Israel's independence, I was struck by a thought. It was, why hasn't Bush had the nerve to talk like this for the past 5 years? If he had been as bold and honest as he was today, the American public would better understand the challenges of being the superpower of the world and our special bond with freedom seeking people.
"We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world." Applause.
"We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction." Applause.
"We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve." Applause.
"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century."
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Applause.
That is the statement that sent the far left into a tailspin. That speaks volumes, doesn't it? And then the non-serious like Howard Dean and his posse said since Secretary of Defense Gates just today said more dialogue with Iran would be helpful, they fail to point out that he is not speaking of the Presidential level, or of those of upper government in Iran. He's speaking at the defense department level. Funny how they keep editing out what they don't want to include in their criticisms of foreign policy. Like the 100 years remark of McCain that is still taken out of context to this day.
So, if you want to talk of 'disgraceful' behavior, instead of provocative as it really was, just remember Pelosi, or Albright, or Baghdad Jim McDermott, to name a few.
Appeasement is not the path to peace.
The best one? Nancy Pelosi claims the remarks from President Bush's speech to the Knesset were not becoming of the Office of the President. That was priceless. You remember it was Pelosi that hightailed it to Damascus as soon as she was sworn in as Speaker of the House and met with Junior Assad, despite her State Department asking her not to, don't you? And what did it produce? Israel bitch slapped her and said she misrepresented them to Assad. Welcome to prime time, Speaker Pelosi.
Susan Rice was all over television, justifying Obama's foreign policy decision to meet with leaders of the terrorist nations, like Iran in particular, without pre-conditions, as his own web site clearly states. Susan Rice criticized the Bush administration for talking to North Korea but not to Iran. Susan Rice criticized the Bush Administration for talking to Sudan but not Syria.
Did Susan Rice get the memo that the Bush administration has sent diplomatic teams to Iran, quietly and professionally, to open dialogue? Several times. There is a big difference, however, in sending diplomats to do the job for which they are trained and that of setting up meetings at the Presidential level without any pre-conditions. You remember Rice from her days with Maddie Albright and the whole party like it's 1999 in North Korea, don't you? And, that ended how? This administration - that of the failed policies of Bush, according to the Obamabots, has made progress by demanding 6 party talks with North Korea and, again, using diplomats.
As I listened to President Bush's speech to the Knesset, where leaders and dignitaries, Israeli and American, were gathered to mark Israel's independence, I was struck by a thought. It was, why hasn't Bush had the nerve to talk like this for the past 5 years? If he had been as bold and honest as he was today, the American public would better understand the challenges of being the superpower of the world and our special bond with freedom seeking people.
"We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world." Applause.
"We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction." Applause.
"We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve." Applause.
"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century."
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Applause.
That is the statement that sent the far left into a tailspin. That speaks volumes, doesn't it? And then the non-serious like Howard Dean and his posse said since Secretary of Defense Gates just today said more dialogue with Iran would be helpful, they fail to point out that he is not speaking of the Presidential level, or of those of upper government in Iran. He's speaking at the defense department level. Funny how they keep editing out what they don't want to include in their criticisms of foreign policy. Like the 100 years remark of McCain that is still taken out of context to this day.
So, if you want to talk of 'disgraceful' behavior, instead of provocative as it really was, just remember Pelosi, or Albright, or Baghdad Jim McDermott, to name a few.
Appeasement is not the path to peace.
Bloggers Unite for Human Rights
Today has been designated Bloggers Unite for Human Rights day for the international blogging community to use the power of the blog to send out messages of support for human rights. For their web site: "Bloggers Unite is an initiative designed to harness the power of the blogosphere to make the world a better place. By challenging bloggers to blog about a particular social cause on a single day, a single voice can be joined with thousands of others to help make a real positive difference, from raising awareness for cancer, to an effort of better education systems or support third world countries." Sounds like a plan.
If you are interested, the web site is http://www.unite.blogcatalog.com/
I've chosen to post some parts of John McCain's recent speech at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. The speech is titled His Vision for Defending the Freedom and Dignity of the World's Vulnerable. It encompasses everything from slavery, human trafficking, religious freedom around the world, Internet exploitation of children, etc. It can be found in full at http://www.johnmccain.com/.
"There is a tendency in our age to accede to the spurious excuse of moral relativism and turn away from the harshest examples of man's inhumanity to man; to ignore the darker side of human nature that encroaches upon our decency by subtle degree. There are many reasons for this. Blessed with opportunity, and intent on the challenges of work and family, our own lives often seem too full and hectic to take notice of offenses that seem distant from our own reality."
"Confronting evil has never been easy - in our age or any other. But the failure to do so affects even those who are complacent with our own blessings and secure in our human rights. Accepting the degradation of values we believe are universal is to relinquish some of our own humanity. America was founded on the belief in the inherent dignity of all human life and that his dignity can only be preserved through shared respect and shared responsibility. We can retain our own freedom when others are robbed of theirs, but not the sense of virtue that made our revolution a moral as well as political crusade, and which recognizes that personal happiness is so much more than pleasure, and requires us to serve causes greater than self-interest."
"It is also the appropriate concern of a nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all people are equal, to encourage and coax other cultures into abandoning practices that afflict the happiness and health of women and children, whether they be practices that mutilate their bodies or impose on them marriage before their maturity and without their informed consent. I would insist that our diplomacy actively raise and discourage in our relationships with other countries customs that so degrade and physically threaten people, and explain that the full benefits of friendship with the United States are predicated on a shared respect for the basic right of women and children not to suffer atrocities to their physical and emotional health to protect traditions that should have been ended long ago."
"Our nation, whose founders sacrificed for the belief that we would be an example to the world, has long appreciated that our freedom confers responsibilities on us all, and among them, is our respect for the freedom of others. Ours is not a perfect history. But it is a history distinguished by our pursuit of this ideal. As we pursue greater individual freedom and economic opportunity, as we take advantage of new technologies and explore a world more accessible to more people than ever before, we must be diligent in our support of those rights, and in our active opposition to the enemies of human dignity in our own society and in all the dark corners of the world. We must remember that our freedoms are not only defended by our diplomacy and military power but, very importantly, by the decency and respect with which we treat one another, and by our belief that as we our dignity is entitled to respect so we are obliged to respect and defend the dignity of others. Ours is a nation with a conscience, and thank God we are."
Freedom is a human right, the most basic human right.
If you are interested, the web site is http://www.unite.blogcatalog.com/
I've chosen to post some parts of John McCain's recent speech at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. The speech is titled His Vision for Defending the Freedom and Dignity of the World's Vulnerable. It encompasses everything from slavery, human trafficking, religious freedom around the world, Internet exploitation of children, etc. It can be found in full at http://www.johnmccain.com/.
"There is a tendency in our age to accede to the spurious excuse of moral relativism and turn away from the harshest examples of man's inhumanity to man; to ignore the darker side of human nature that encroaches upon our decency by subtle degree. There are many reasons for this. Blessed with opportunity, and intent on the challenges of work and family, our own lives often seem too full and hectic to take notice of offenses that seem distant from our own reality."
"Confronting evil has never been easy - in our age or any other. But the failure to do so affects even those who are complacent with our own blessings and secure in our human rights. Accepting the degradation of values we believe are universal is to relinquish some of our own humanity. America was founded on the belief in the inherent dignity of all human life and that his dignity can only be preserved through shared respect and shared responsibility. We can retain our own freedom when others are robbed of theirs, but not the sense of virtue that made our revolution a moral as well as political crusade, and which recognizes that personal happiness is so much more than pleasure, and requires us to serve causes greater than self-interest."
"It is also the appropriate concern of a nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all people are equal, to encourage and coax other cultures into abandoning practices that afflict the happiness and health of women and children, whether they be practices that mutilate their bodies or impose on them marriage before their maturity and without their informed consent. I would insist that our diplomacy actively raise and discourage in our relationships with other countries customs that so degrade and physically threaten people, and explain that the full benefits of friendship with the United States are predicated on a shared respect for the basic right of women and children not to suffer atrocities to their physical and emotional health to protect traditions that should have been ended long ago."
"Our nation, whose founders sacrificed for the belief that we would be an example to the world, has long appreciated that our freedom confers responsibilities on us all, and among them, is our respect for the freedom of others. Ours is not a perfect history. But it is a history distinguished by our pursuit of this ideal. As we pursue greater individual freedom and economic opportunity, as we take advantage of new technologies and explore a world more accessible to more people than ever before, we must be diligent in our support of those rights, and in our active opposition to the enemies of human dignity in our own society and in all the dark corners of the world. We must remember that our freedoms are not only defended by our diplomacy and military power but, very importantly, by the decency and respect with which we treat one another, and by our belief that as we our dignity is entitled to respect so we are obliged to respect and defend the dignity of others. Ours is a nation with a conscience, and thank God we are."
Freedom is a human right, the most basic human right.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Gray Areas
President Bush and the First Lady are in Israel today celebrating the 60th birthday of Israel. Condi Rice is there, too, as are many Americans. It is said that the President and Secretary Rice will continue on with peace talks while there. Just a couple of hours ago, an Iranian built rocket was shot into a shopping mall in southern Israel. A medical clinic was located in the mall and it was destroyed.
Iran is a threat to the region and the world in general. The boldness of Iran's attacks continue as time passes.
I have no worry if John McCain is elected President. I know he will be a strong supporter of Israel. His friend, fellow Senator, and vocal supporter Joe Lieberman has no question of this either. What about Barack Obama?
From American Thinker, I read an article by Clarice Feldman. She posted about an interview with Obama in The Atlantic. Jeff Goldberg asked: "Do you think Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?"
Obama: "No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically."
Obama's handlers claim the 'constant sore' to which he refers is the Middle East conflict. However, that is not what the man said. And, as he likes to tell all of us, words are important. He is a Harvard trained lawyer. He is well spoken and concise when it suits him.
So, will his policy be a 'third Bush term' with foreign policy concerning Israel? I thought Bush's policies were all failed policies. President Bush has been distinctly non-hawkish concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Obama and his people like to criticize that more attention hasn't been given to the problems there.
As writer Jennifer Rubin points out, Obama, when asked if he was 'flummoxed' by Hamas' endorsement, replied: "I wasn't flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and no gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "this is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security."
Confusion would be a natural state over Obama's foreign policy. And, when held in context with Rev. Wright's anti-Semite rants and the awarding to Farrakhan the lifetime achievement award by his church, well, confusion is natural. Obama has accepted the black liberation theological opinion of Israel for over 20 years now.
Maybe his love of the gray areas precludes recognition that President Bush, the cowboy diplomat, has engaged in talks around the region, just not with Iran and Syria. Quiet talks have been held with both countries and no credit is given for that either. And, by the way, as I have stated before, to a Texan, the adjective 'cowboy' is not an insult. Only to smug Harvard trained lawyers. The cowboy in the White House is Harvard trained, too.
Does Obama expect the voters in America to accept he is more worldly than John McCain?
Obama refused to vote in the Senate for the Iran Revolutionary Guard to be labeled as terrorists. The legislation passed anyway. Again, his liberalism is out of step with America. He claimed it was saber-rattling. Actually it was to impose sanctions, which is not saber-rattling. Just the opposite. Sanctions is very non-hawkish. That is black and white.
Obama has some foreign policy advisers who inspire questions as to how committed he is to the security of Israel. Susan Rice, for example now claims Obama never claimed to be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad unconditionally. However, on Obama's campaign web site his position is stated as: "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
And this: "Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs." Not diplomats, advisers, mediators. No, Obama himself. At the Presidential level.
And, if he is so worldly and such a leader in foreign policy, why does he complain about the progression in the war in Afghanistan? He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. That is jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is strongly in Afghanistan. Obama has not held one hearing to do oversight on Afghanistan. Not one. His response when questioned about that: "Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007." So, he is too busy running for President to be chairman of the committee.
He has been running for President for two of the three years he has been in the U.S. Senate.
Black and white.
Iran is a threat to the region and the world in general. The boldness of Iran's attacks continue as time passes.
I have no worry if John McCain is elected President. I know he will be a strong supporter of Israel. His friend, fellow Senator, and vocal supporter Joe Lieberman has no question of this either. What about Barack Obama?
From American Thinker, I read an article by Clarice Feldman. She posted about an interview with Obama in The Atlantic. Jeff Goldberg asked: "Do you think Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?"
Obama: "No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically."
Obama's handlers claim the 'constant sore' to which he refers is the Middle East conflict. However, that is not what the man said. And, as he likes to tell all of us, words are important. He is a Harvard trained lawyer. He is well spoken and concise when it suits him.
So, will his policy be a 'third Bush term' with foreign policy concerning Israel? I thought Bush's policies were all failed policies. President Bush has been distinctly non-hawkish concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Obama and his people like to criticize that more attention hasn't been given to the problems there.
As writer Jennifer Rubin points out, Obama, when asked if he was 'flummoxed' by Hamas' endorsement, replied: "I wasn't flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and no gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "this is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security."
Confusion would be a natural state over Obama's foreign policy. And, when held in context with Rev. Wright's anti-Semite rants and the awarding to Farrakhan the lifetime achievement award by his church, well, confusion is natural. Obama has accepted the black liberation theological opinion of Israel for over 20 years now.
Maybe his love of the gray areas precludes recognition that President Bush, the cowboy diplomat, has engaged in talks around the region, just not with Iran and Syria. Quiet talks have been held with both countries and no credit is given for that either. And, by the way, as I have stated before, to a Texan, the adjective 'cowboy' is not an insult. Only to smug Harvard trained lawyers. The cowboy in the White House is Harvard trained, too.
Does Obama expect the voters in America to accept he is more worldly than John McCain?
Obama refused to vote in the Senate for the Iran Revolutionary Guard to be labeled as terrorists. The legislation passed anyway. Again, his liberalism is out of step with America. He claimed it was saber-rattling. Actually it was to impose sanctions, which is not saber-rattling. Just the opposite. Sanctions is very non-hawkish. That is black and white.
Obama has some foreign policy advisers who inspire questions as to how committed he is to the security of Israel. Susan Rice, for example now claims Obama never claimed to be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad unconditionally. However, on Obama's campaign web site his position is stated as: "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
And this: "Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs." Not diplomats, advisers, mediators. No, Obama himself. At the Presidential level.
And, if he is so worldly and such a leader in foreign policy, why does he complain about the progression in the war in Afghanistan? He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. That is jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is strongly in Afghanistan. Obama has not held one hearing to do oversight on Afghanistan. Not one. His response when questioned about that: "Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007." So, he is too busy running for President to be chairman of the committee.
He has been running for President for two of the three years he has been in the U.S. Senate.
Black and white.
Questions and Answers
I was tagged by Vegas Art Guy and promised I would, so here goes.
1.) What was I doing 10 years ago?
I was preparing to move with my little family to Houston.
2.) What are five things on your to-do list for today?
Help my husband get going to work, son to school
Laundry
General clean up of kitchen and great room
Let dog in and out and in and out and in and out
Feed cat
3.) What snacks do I enjoy?
Popcorn
Chocolate
Chips and salsa
4.) Things I would do if I were a billionaire
Pay off mortgage and bills
Purchase mother in law's condo for her to outright own
Set up secure future for son
Invest for retirement
Travel the world
Form a non-profit foundation to distribute grants
5.) Three Bad Habits
Impatient
Sarcasm
Giving opinions whether asked for or not
6.) 5 Places I have lived (there are more!)
Biloxi, MS
New Orleans, LA
Shreveport, LA
Atlanta, GA
Maturin, Venezuela
7.) 5 Jobs I have had (there are more!)
Office Mgr
Accounting clerk
Volunteer Coordinator
Education Director
Title Clerk
I am suppose to name 6 people to do this and learn more about them. I'll just leave it to anyone who would like to do it. It's quick and easy. My kind of tag.
1.) What was I doing 10 years ago?
I was preparing to move with my little family to Houston.
2.) What are five things on your to-do list for today?
Help my husband get going to work, son to school
Laundry
General clean up of kitchen and great room
Let dog in and out and in and out and in and out
Feed cat
3.) What snacks do I enjoy?
Popcorn
Chocolate
Chips and salsa
4.) Things I would do if I were a billionaire
Pay off mortgage and bills
Purchase mother in law's condo for her to outright own
Set up secure future for son
Invest for retirement
Travel the world
Form a non-profit foundation to distribute grants
5.) Three Bad Habits
Impatient
Sarcasm
Giving opinions whether asked for or not
6.) 5 Places I have lived (there are more!)
Biloxi, MS
New Orleans, LA
Shreveport, LA
Atlanta, GA
Maturin, Venezuela
7.) 5 Jobs I have had (there are more!)
Office Mgr
Accounting clerk
Volunteer Coordinator
Education Director
Title Clerk
I am suppose to name 6 people to do this and learn more about them. I'll just leave it to anyone who would like to do it. It's quick and easy. My kind of tag.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
What Kind of a Tree Are You?
An interesting post on the Confederate Yankee's blog caught my eye. The story retold on the post was of a young Fox News staffer and the reason she was fired. The reason of her dismissal? She told John McCain that she voted for him in her primary because her father is a Vietnam veteran. Here's the blurb: "a 24 year old Fox News Chanel production assistant was fired this morning for something she said during the red carpet arrivals at the Time 100 Gala last night. Insiders tell us the assistant, identified as Jennifer Locke, was on assignment with a camera crew to cover the entertainment angle of the event. When Sen. John McCain walked by, the assistant said, "I voted for you in the primary, you're going to win." McCain was overheard saying to her, "You're not supposed to reveal that." Locke apparently continued to explain that she is the daughter of Vietnam veteran."
McCain correctly admonished the young woman, gently, and Fox News did the right thing by dismissing her from employment. She will look back and be thankful as she continues in the entertainment business, I think. She learned a valuable lesson.
Too bad those at all the other networks have not been taught the same lesson. When does MSNBC dismiss the likes of Matthews, and Obermann, and NBC lets go Meredith Vierra? And, CBS fires Katie Couric? Oh yeah. But she'll be let go for ratings not for her lack of professionalism.
Think of the times you've simply clicked the channel because you can't believe a word you are hearing due to the editorial comments of the news readers. Think about Chris Matthews, a former political staffer for Tip O'Neill and his remarks about the tingling up his leg over Obama. It's enough to make a person gag. He should hang his head in shame yet he doesn't even realize he is doing anything wrong. The trend towards those on television choosing a presidential nominee is truly troubling. Time and Newsweek have all but officially proclaimed Obama as the next President. Newsweek has quite the hit piece on the Republican party in the new issue, declaring that the famous Republican 'attack machine' has gotten votes due to scaring voters and it's mostly those stupid people in middle America who don't make a lot of money and go to church. Newsweek is a joke.
And, for more entertainment joking, are you as creeped out by Barbara Walters and her revelations in her new book as I am? Dear Lord. I haven't read the book, Audition, and don't plan on it either. I just don't feel right being an accomplice to her sacrificing the reputations and privacy of all her former lovers, including a Republican, black, married politician from Massachusetts more than 30 years ago. I'm sure her only problem with that equation was the fact that he was a Republican. The horror.
I need a bath. Bad enough we have interviewers like her to thank for moving the entertainment shows to the lowest common denominator. She even mentions she had to chose between interviewing President Bush or Mary Kay Letourneau for her last appearance on the show 20/20. Letourneau, you may remember, made news for her conviction of having a sexual relationship with a student as well as having two children with him as she divorced her husband and left her own children. She chose Letourneau, of course.
Class act, that one.
McCain correctly admonished the young woman, gently, and Fox News did the right thing by dismissing her from employment. She will look back and be thankful as she continues in the entertainment business, I think. She learned a valuable lesson.
Too bad those at all the other networks have not been taught the same lesson. When does MSNBC dismiss the likes of Matthews, and Obermann, and NBC lets go Meredith Vierra? And, CBS fires Katie Couric? Oh yeah. But she'll be let go for ratings not for her lack of professionalism.
Think of the times you've simply clicked the channel because you can't believe a word you are hearing due to the editorial comments of the news readers. Think about Chris Matthews, a former political staffer for Tip O'Neill and his remarks about the tingling up his leg over Obama. It's enough to make a person gag. He should hang his head in shame yet he doesn't even realize he is doing anything wrong. The trend towards those on television choosing a presidential nominee is truly troubling. Time and Newsweek have all but officially proclaimed Obama as the next President. Newsweek has quite the hit piece on the Republican party in the new issue, declaring that the famous Republican 'attack machine' has gotten votes due to scaring voters and it's mostly those stupid people in middle America who don't make a lot of money and go to church. Newsweek is a joke.
And, for more entertainment joking, are you as creeped out by Barbara Walters and her revelations in her new book as I am? Dear Lord. I haven't read the book, Audition, and don't plan on it either. I just don't feel right being an accomplice to her sacrificing the reputations and privacy of all her former lovers, including a Republican, black, married politician from Massachusetts more than 30 years ago. I'm sure her only problem with that equation was the fact that he was a Republican. The horror.
I need a bath. Bad enough we have interviewers like her to thank for moving the entertainment shows to the lowest common denominator. She even mentions she had to chose between interviewing President Bush or Mary Kay Letourneau for her last appearance on the show 20/20. Letourneau, you may remember, made news for her conviction of having a sexual relationship with a student as well as having two children with him as she divorced her husband and left her own children. She chose Letourneau, of course.
Class act, that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)