It's official - President Barack Obama is in full blown re-election mode. Today he delivered a speech justifying his hasty and incorrect decisions made to appease either side of the political aisle - he was for the release of photos before he was against it - with the bonus of incorrectly identifying his Secretary of Defense as he proclaimed the safety of the American people is first priority with him.
President Obama decided to make his defensive speech into a personal story, as frequently happens. He is a narcissistic human and everything, it turns out, is all about him. "I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake."
Me, me, me. What American doesn't have a story of family immigration? We are a nation of immigrants. Why not carry it full circle and state that the rising before dawn in a foreign land was in Indonesia to say Muslim prayers with his Muslim step-father? Isn't this is personal story, too? His mother who left her children in Hawaii to be raised by the grandparents as she trekked around Indonesia and Africa for her work in Marxist theory?
Priceless.
Mr. Obama, heralded as oh so much smarter than that dunce George W. Bush, acknowledged the presence of the Secretary of Defense as "William Gates." For those playing along at home, the correct name is "Robert Gates", or if you're up for it, "Bob" Gates.
There was much irony in the speech delivered by President Obama. At the beginning he referenced "hasty" decisions made by the previous administration as they scrambled to keep our country safe after the attacks of 9/11/01. "Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions." Ironic in light of the fact that this whole speech is to bolster his decision to close GITMO while the Senate vote yesterday produced only 6 members willing to vote in favor of giving the President money to close GITMO without a clear plan. Even Press Secretary Gibbs described the Executive Order to close the facility as "hasty". Decisions have consequences.
President Obama heralded his ban on enhanced interrogation methods but failed to mention his Executive Order to allow rendition to continue. He brought in the name of John McCain as someone who was against enhanced interrogation methods but not as someone highly critical of the Obama decision to close GITMO without a clear plan. He referenced Sen. Lindsey Graham - a JAG- as someone who has voiced a favorable opinion that prisoners don't escape from SuperMax facilities - but not to the fact that Graham in on record as against bringing GITMO detainees to this country, and that he believes it violates current immigration laws.
President Obama points to the fact that 2/3 of the detainees in GITMO were released by the Bush administration. Well, if Obama thinks it is good to release them, since they have been there so long with only 3 trials so far, then why the criticism?
Obama claims our country's "moral authority" has been damaged. He is of the proficiently apologizing crowd of politicians, so this is not a surprising claim. However, it is interesting to whom the rest of the world continues to come for assistance - yes, America.
"Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest i spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans." That's really interesting, considering he has been at the forefront of making national security a political issue. As a candidate running for Senate in Illinois, he was conveniently anti-Iraq war. As candidate running for President, he couldn't deliver a speech without criticizing foreign policy and military decisions of the former administration - as we were a nation at war with troops overseas. He still puts into every speech either "long before I was President" or the "last eight years" or the "failed policies of the Bush administration". Plus, he left the door open to "truth commissions" to lead to prosecuting the former administration for their political opinion and decisions.
"I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said." Except in the website Gov.org which is to have everything on it and doesn't even come close. Except in living up to his promise to allow 5 days between a bill arriving on his desk and its signing, which also hasn't happened.
And, three or more references were made blaming the media for story lines stoking political divides. He didn't, however, bother to point to the fact that the slobbering press is very firmly planted on his side of every debate. Some press members so unprofessionally biased as to refer to former Bush administration members speeches as "sleazy" and others to publicly claim it is their "job" to see to it that Obama succeeds as President. Who of us can even imagine such help from the media given to former President Bush?
President Obama, is Michelle really proud of America yet?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Joint Resolutions in the House and Senate to Watch
During the legislative update at the Greater Houston Council of Federated Republican Women Tuesday, several Senate and House Joint Resolutions were mentioned as pending legislation to keep an eye on.
SJR1 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. (6 terms for House of Representatives and 2 terms as a Senator)
SJR4 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States.
SJR6- A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Untied States relating to United States citizenship.
A person born in the United States shall not be a citizen of the United States unless:
1) one parent of the person is a citizen of the United States;
2) one parent of the person is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States who resides in the United States;
3) one parent of the person is an alien performing active service in the Armed Forces of the United States; or
4) the person is naturalized in accordance with the laws of the United States.
HJR5 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd article of amendment thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
As Texas residents and as residents of a state greatly affected by illegal immigration, many members present at the district meeting were curious about the joint resolution on an amendment to the Constitution about U.S. citizenship. This was introduced back in January by Senator Vitter (R-LA). We all know that currently any baby born in our country is automatically a U.S. citizen, regardless of the legal status of the mother.
I asked Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) about the status of this resolution in the Senate yesterday during a bloggers tele-conference. Senator Cornyn pointed to the fact that a Constitutional amendment would be the proper action for such legislation, due to the 14th Amendment. Though originally put in place to deal with public education, the 14th Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
As the Supreme Court confirmed in 1873, in Slaughter-House cases and in 1884 in Elk v Wilkins, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States. At the time, there was no issue of illegal immigration into our country. Times have changed and this is a major problem to states which must provide services for its citizens.
And, on HRJ5, the joint resolution to remove limitations on the number of terms an individual may serve as President: this is troubling, particularly in light of the current President and his push to put government in charge of all aspects of our lives.
SJR1 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. (6 terms for House of Representatives and 2 terms as a Senator)
SJR4 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States.
SJR6- A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Untied States relating to United States citizenship.
A person born in the United States shall not be a citizen of the United States unless:
1) one parent of the person is a citizen of the United States;
2) one parent of the person is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States who resides in the United States;
3) one parent of the person is an alien performing active service in the Armed Forces of the United States; or
4) the person is naturalized in accordance with the laws of the United States.
HJR5 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd article of amendment thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
As Texas residents and as residents of a state greatly affected by illegal immigration, many members present at the district meeting were curious about the joint resolution on an amendment to the Constitution about U.S. citizenship. This was introduced back in January by Senator Vitter (R-LA). We all know that currently any baby born in our country is automatically a U.S. citizen, regardless of the legal status of the mother.
I asked Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) about the status of this resolution in the Senate yesterday during a bloggers tele-conference. Senator Cornyn pointed to the fact that a Constitutional amendment would be the proper action for such legislation, due to the 14th Amendment. Though originally put in place to deal with public education, the 14th Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
As the Supreme Court confirmed in 1873, in Slaughter-House cases and in 1884 in Elk v Wilkins, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States. At the time, there was no issue of illegal immigration into our country. Times have changed and this is a major problem to states which must provide services for its citizens.
And, on HRJ5, the joint resolution to remove limitations on the number of terms an individual may serve as President: this is troubling, particularly in light of the current President and his push to put government in charge of all aspects of our lives.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Perry Adviser Continues Nasty Campaign Speech
"I don't think you could get far enough off the highway on the right-hand side to get to Rick Perry's right." "Is there anything too wacky that he wouldn't say to win that primary?" Those quotes from Charles Cook, editor of Cook Political Report.
As Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Gov Rick Perry square off for the Republican nomination for the 2010 election for Texas Governor, the nastiness continues from the Perry camp. First it was public boasting of his campaign that Hutchinson's husband was fair game and his career as a successful attorney in Texas would be under the microscope and now a quote from a Perry political consultant comes to light, via an article at dallasnews.com : "But that doesn't mean you take your principles and throw them out the door and become a whorehouse and let anybody in who wants to come in, regardless," Dave Carney said.
Carney is worried. Senator Hutchinson brings voters who are moderate Republicans and Independents. It is impossible for a Republican candidate anywhere, yes even in red state Texas, to win an election without Independent voters. Both parties vie for Independents in Texas as they do in other states. Governor Perry is beholden to the far right of the Republican party - the social conservatives who only vote according to their own "moral" litmus tests.
As Rich Galen, a GOP political consultant and former Hutchinson adviser, says "What Hutchinson is saying is that what most of us are looking for is a party that has core fiscal principles - Republican principles that include people who may or may not agree on the social issues." Galen is a former chief of staff to Speaker Newt Gingrich and to VP Dan Quayle. Is he now not "Republican " enough to pass the litmus test?
So, the Perry adviser feels perfectly comfortable to say - out loud - that courting all votes is somehow to lose your core principles and to turn your philosophy into a "whorehouse". Sexist and ignorant. While more conservative voters turn out in primaries, the general voting population is more to the center-right, as is the State of Texas.
Galen says, "You can't win a major race without the independents, and independents are leaving the Republican Party. "From a professional's standpoint, you cannot win elections by getting more votes from fewer people." How many more times must the deaf litmus testers hear those words?
Senator Hutchinson is a Republican. She is fiscally conservative, strong on national defense, and is a strong voice for Texas in Washington, D.C. She backs the ban on federal funding of abortions and she is against late-term abortion. She is in favor of parental notification.
Governor Perry, a former Democrat himself, is leaning on the purity litmus test from the social conservatives to win the primary. He is actively bringing on board politically active pastors - which Republicans traditionally criticize Democrats when they use religion as a political issue. His popularity rating is in the low 30's.
Senator Hutchinson will win the support of suburban voters, women, and economic conservatives. She has a strong, proven record on voting in favor of a consistent robust national defense. Governor Perry only recently became serious over border issues.
Both are Republicans. Both can win over a Democrat as Governor in Texas. But for one to try to out-conservative another using such nasty campaigning - to a fellow Republican - well, what would Ronald Reagan say? The Eleventh Commandment - don't speak ill of a fellow Republican. Or a sister Republican.
As Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Gov Rick Perry square off for the Republican nomination for the 2010 election for Texas Governor, the nastiness continues from the Perry camp. First it was public boasting of his campaign that Hutchinson's husband was fair game and his career as a successful attorney in Texas would be under the microscope and now a quote from a Perry political consultant comes to light, via an article at dallasnews.com : "But that doesn't mean you take your principles and throw them out the door and become a whorehouse and let anybody in who wants to come in, regardless," Dave Carney said.
Carney is worried. Senator Hutchinson brings voters who are moderate Republicans and Independents. It is impossible for a Republican candidate anywhere, yes even in red state Texas, to win an election without Independent voters. Both parties vie for Independents in Texas as they do in other states. Governor Perry is beholden to the far right of the Republican party - the social conservatives who only vote according to their own "moral" litmus tests.
As Rich Galen, a GOP political consultant and former Hutchinson adviser, says "What Hutchinson is saying is that what most of us are looking for is a party that has core fiscal principles - Republican principles that include people who may or may not agree on the social issues." Galen is a former chief of staff to Speaker Newt Gingrich and to VP Dan Quayle. Is he now not "Republican " enough to pass the litmus test?
So, the Perry adviser feels perfectly comfortable to say - out loud - that courting all votes is somehow to lose your core principles and to turn your philosophy into a "whorehouse". Sexist and ignorant. While more conservative voters turn out in primaries, the general voting population is more to the center-right, as is the State of Texas.
Galen says, "You can't win a major race without the independents, and independents are leaving the Republican Party. "From a professional's standpoint, you cannot win elections by getting more votes from fewer people." How many more times must the deaf litmus testers hear those words?
Senator Hutchinson is a Republican. She is fiscally conservative, strong on national defense, and is a strong voice for Texas in Washington, D.C. She backs the ban on federal funding of abortions and she is against late-term abortion. She is in favor of parental notification.
Governor Perry, a former Democrat himself, is leaning on the purity litmus test from the social conservatives to win the primary. He is actively bringing on board politically active pastors - which Republicans traditionally criticize Democrats when they use religion as a political issue. His popularity rating is in the low 30's.
Senator Hutchinson will win the support of suburban voters, women, and economic conservatives. She has a strong, proven record on voting in favor of a consistent robust national defense. Governor Perry only recently became serious over border issues.
Both are Republicans. Both can win over a Democrat as Governor in Texas. But for one to try to out-conservative another using such nasty campaigning - to a fellow Republican - well, what would Ronald Reagan say? The Eleventh Commandment - don't speak ill of a fellow Republican. Or a sister Republican.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Ted Cruz, Rising Republican Star
Earlier in the year, I heard a guest speaker at a Republican women's district meeting that left me with much hope for the Republican future of the state of Texas. The speaker was Ted Cruz and he is running for state attorney general. I wrote about my impressions of him then.
Recently Mark Hemingway wrote a piece on Cruz for National Review Online weekend digital column. Cruz is gaining national attention as a rising star in the Republican party. This is his first effort at elected office. He is 38 and a new dad. His most powerful attribute is his ability to communicate to an audience. And, he most of all is unhappy enough with the Republican party to run for office and share his vision for the future. He fully understands how critical it is to be a good communicator in order to win elections. "I think what we misunderstand is that the ability to persuade and inspire is the single most important tool any public leader has." He went on to explain to Hemingway the importance of history changing speeches by Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate and Churchill's "We shall never surrender" speech.
He is a common sense conservative. "One thing Republicans do that I think is disastrous is that many conservatives try and beat their chest and say, "We are so terribly conservative --Attila the Hun, he was such a squish! But what Reagan did was say, 'The values I'm talking about are commonsense American values that have been part of this country for over 200 years. They're the values that have been in every small town and every business throughout this country.' And he connected with people."
Cruz possesses an impressive record of accomplishment even before running for public office. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. He is a debate champion. He has argued before the Supreme Court - successfully. He is the youngest to be appointed solicitor general of Texas and the longest serving. He won the Best Brief Award form the National Association of Attorneys General for 5 years in a row. And, he clerked for Supreme Court chief justice William Rehnquist. He presented 8 oral arguments before the Supreme Court. He won a landmark second amendment case - District of Columbia v. Heller. He was a domestic policy adviser for George W. Bush's 2000 campaign and then became an honest critic of the administration as it strayed from the core Republican principles.
He is an advocate of federalism. And, his vision forward is that of "opportunity conservatives", a simple and direct policy of enhancing opportunity, personal responsibility and the chance to realize the American dream.
Ted Cruz has a bright future ahead of him.
Recently Mark Hemingway wrote a piece on Cruz for National Review Online weekend digital column. Cruz is gaining national attention as a rising star in the Republican party. This is his first effort at elected office. He is 38 and a new dad. His most powerful attribute is his ability to communicate to an audience. And, he most of all is unhappy enough with the Republican party to run for office and share his vision for the future. He fully understands how critical it is to be a good communicator in order to win elections. "I think what we misunderstand is that the ability to persuade and inspire is the single most important tool any public leader has." He went on to explain to Hemingway the importance of history changing speeches by Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate and Churchill's "We shall never surrender" speech.
He is a common sense conservative. "One thing Republicans do that I think is disastrous is that many conservatives try and beat their chest and say, "We are so terribly conservative --Attila the Hun, he was such a squish! But what Reagan did was say, 'The values I'm talking about are commonsense American values that have been part of this country for over 200 years. They're the values that have been in every small town and every business throughout this country.' And he connected with people."
Cruz possesses an impressive record of accomplishment even before running for public office. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. He is a debate champion. He has argued before the Supreme Court - successfully. He is the youngest to be appointed solicitor general of Texas and the longest serving. He won the Best Brief Award form the National Association of Attorneys General for 5 years in a row. And, he clerked for Supreme Court chief justice William Rehnquist. He presented 8 oral arguments before the Supreme Court. He won a landmark second amendment case - District of Columbia v. Heller. He was a domestic policy adviser for George W. Bush's 2000 campaign and then became an honest critic of the administration as it strayed from the core Republican principles.
He is an advocate of federalism. And, his vision forward is that of "opportunity conservatives", a simple and direct policy of enhancing opportunity, personal responsibility and the chance to realize the American dream.
Ted Cruz has a bright future ahead of him.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Governor Perry Dost Protest Too Much
A few days past the one month mark from the national protests known as the Tea Parties, the Governor of Texas is still trying to clean up what in the world he was trying to say as he spoke before a gathering in Austin.
On April 15, Governor Perry grabbed the microphone and the national spotlight as he tossed some red meat to the crowd - Texans are fed up and the state just may secede if Washington doesn't shape up. The crowd was a mix of bi-partisan support for lower taxes, an end to the power grabs on display in Washington, and smaller government in the lives of ordinary citizens. Governor Perry, a conservative Republican governor, is a savvy politician. A former Democrat, this is not his first rodeo. He coyly rose to support federalism while implying the ultimate - for the state of "don't mess with" Texas to simply withdraw from the Union.
Absurd? Of course. Tons o' fun for the media? You betcha. Governor Perry rode that bit of nonsense all the way with lots of interviews and op-eds. Governor Perry, further proving he doesn't get the Tea Party idea, after all, joined in with Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina to have a "Tea Party 2.0" via teleconference. Both have received lots of press for standing firm on what stimulus money their states will and will not accept from the federal government. By conducting a phone conference, they both prove they are willing to seize the Tea Party idea and exploit it for their own uses.
Texas is not rejecting all stimulus money, let that be clear. Susan Combs, state controller, has placed the state's expenditures and revenues online. She has the site in place to track all federal funds and how they are spent after they reach Austin. Governor Perry rejects the amount of federal money that comes with the strings attached as it pertains to unemployment compensation.
In Sunday's Austin American - Statesman, Perry once again denied that the State of Texas will secede under his leadership. "I can't say I was surprised that critics recast my defense of federalism and fiscal discipline into advocacy for secession from the Union. I have never advocated for secession and never will." Of course he wasn't "surprised". He counted on the cheers from the crowd as he spewed forth with the veiled threats and cameras rolling.
Perry is up for re-election. From where I sit, he is not deserving of a third term. An unprecedented third term for a Texas governor. It is time for leadership with tempered speech. Common sense decency.
On April 15, Governor Perry grabbed the microphone and the national spotlight as he tossed some red meat to the crowd - Texans are fed up and the state just may secede if Washington doesn't shape up. The crowd was a mix of bi-partisan support for lower taxes, an end to the power grabs on display in Washington, and smaller government in the lives of ordinary citizens. Governor Perry, a conservative Republican governor, is a savvy politician. A former Democrat, this is not his first rodeo. He coyly rose to support federalism while implying the ultimate - for the state of "don't mess with" Texas to simply withdraw from the Union.
Absurd? Of course. Tons o' fun for the media? You betcha. Governor Perry rode that bit of nonsense all the way with lots of interviews and op-eds. Governor Perry, further proving he doesn't get the Tea Party idea, after all, joined in with Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina to have a "Tea Party 2.0" via teleconference. Both have received lots of press for standing firm on what stimulus money their states will and will not accept from the federal government. By conducting a phone conference, they both prove they are willing to seize the Tea Party idea and exploit it for their own uses.
Texas is not rejecting all stimulus money, let that be clear. Susan Combs, state controller, has placed the state's expenditures and revenues online. She has the site in place to track all federal funds and how they are spent after they reach Austin. Governor Perry rejects the amount of federal money that comes with the strings attached as it pertains to unemployment compensation.
In Sunday's Austin American - Statesman, Perry once again denied that the State of Texas will secede under his leadership. "I can't say I was surprised that critics recast my defense of federalism and fiscal discipline into advocacy for secession from the Union. I have never advocated for secession and never will." Of course he wasn't "surprised". He counted on the cheers from the crowd as he spewed forth with the veiled threats and cameras rolling.
Perry is up for re-election. From where I sit, he is not deserving of a third term. An unprecedented third term for a Texas governor. It is time for leadership with tempered speech. Common sense decency.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Petition The RNC To Stop Stupid Resolution
The RNC is in some serious need of a shake-up. Recently, at a meeting of like-minded women, I heard from a insider source that the RNC is suffering due to the old elephants with a complete absence of constructive action plans versus new leadership with fresh ideas on how to move forward as a political party. Here is some proof of the insanity:
A special session has been called for next week with a resolution up for vote as part of the agenda. The resolution is to rebrand the Democrats as the "Democrat Socialist Party". This is not a joke. And, believe me when I tell you that I am not laughing. I am furious.
What the hell is going on? Let me be clear - any RNC member voting in the affirmative for this 10 kinds of crazy resolution has to be shown the door immediately. There is a Facebook page to sign a petition telling the RNC : Don't Pass That Stupid "Democrat Socialist" Resolution. That 's the name of the page and it is in the group section. Go there now. Sign up as a voice of reason.
Roger Simon wrote at Politico on May 13, "When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: "Who cares?."
Michael Steele is opposed to the resolution. As the Politico article sited:"Steele said that while he believes Democrats are indeed marching America toward European-style socialism, he also said in a flash of insight that officially referring to them as the Democrat Socialist Party will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans." Amen.
Why don't we just put a big ol' "Kick Me" sign on our backs? It'd be the same effect.
Chairman Steele didn't want the special session. The summer meeting is to be held in July. Nothing pending is so pressing that a special session is necessary. Other than the stupid resolution, the other two resolutions to be voted on are to urge Republican lawmakers to reject earmarks and to commend them for opposing bailouts and reckless spending bills, according to the article. Can we all just say, "DUH"? Is this the best they've got for strategy?
The RNC has taken most of the spending control away from Steele. Many wanted a "no confidence" vote to be taken on his leadership. That has fallen away with the takeover of funding say-so. The politics of selfish, personal aggrandizement is killing the RNC.
Too many old dinosaur elephants have forgotten why they serve at RNC. It is for the party, it is not for their own individual power grabs. All of this is petty and unproductive.
And, stupid.
A special session has been called for next week with a resolution up for vote as part of the agenda. The resolution is to rebrand the Democrats as the "Democrat Socialist Party". This is not a joke. And, believe me when I tell you that I am not laughing. I am furious.
What the hell is going on? Let me be clear - any RNC member voting in the affirmative for this 10 kinds of crazy resolution has to be shown the door immediately. There is a Facebook page to sign a petition telling the RNC : Don't Pass That Stupid "Democrat Socialist" Resolution. That 's the name of the page and it is in the group section. Go there now. Sign up as a voice of reason.
Roger Simon wrote at Politico on May 13, "When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: "Who cares?."
Michael Steele is opposed to the resolution. As the Politico article sited:"Steele said that while he believes Democrats are indeed marching America toward European-style socialism, he also said in a flash of insight that officially referring to them as the Democrat Socialist Party will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans." Amen.
Why don't we just put a big ol' "Kick Me" sign on our backs? It'd be the same effect.
Chairman Steele didn't want the special session. The summer meeting is to be held in July. Nothing pending is so pressing that a special session is necessary. Other than the stupid resolution, the other two resolutions to be voted on are to urge Republican lawmakers to reject earmarks and to commend them for opposing bailouts and reckless spending bills, according to the article. Can we all just say, "DUH"? Is this the best they've got for strategy?
The RNC has taken most of the spending control away from Steele. Many wanted a "no confidence" vote to be taken on his leadership. That has fallen away with the takeover of funding say-so. The politics of selfish, personal aggrandizement is killing the RNC.
Too many old dinosaur elephants have forgotten why they serve at RNC. It is for the party, it is not for their own individual power grabs. All of this is petty and unproductive.
And, stupid.
Friday, May 15, 2009
President Obama Goes to Notre Dame
In recent days, the controversy of the honorary degree to be given out to President Obama at University of Notre Dame has put the spotlight on a pretense of superiority the pro-choice ivory tower elitists impose on pro-life Catholic. The decision has put the graduating students in the middle of the mess and that is unfortunate.
Let me begin by stating that I am not Catholic. I was raised in the Presbyterian church. And I am a pro-choice Republican woman. I am a proud member of the Baby Boomer generation and this how I see the whole thing.
There is an article in the Chicago Tribune written by columnist John Kass, one of my favorite newspaper writers, that goes to the heart of the controversy. I strive to maintain a common sense approach to big issues and Kass is such a voice of reason. The problem is not that the President was invited to speak at a commencement address at this Catholic university, it is in the awarding of an honorary law degree to a politician who is commonly thought to be the most pro-abortion President ever to be elected.
From what I have read on the subject, the university has hosted six sitting Presidents as commencement speakers while in office. What university would not think it a coup to have the President of the United States at graduation? The problem arises here due to the fact this is a private university with a very rich religious history and remains to present day as such. In 2004, as more and more discontent among the voters in our country rose and protested politicians who proclaim to be good, practicing Catholics yet run on the platform of the Democratic party which is pro-choice. The U.S. Catholic bishops issued a statement that "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles and that such persons should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That from the Kass article. So, the honorary degree is not within the tenet put forth in the official statement.
The slobbering media are portraying the students protesting the gesture as right wing nuts, overcome with some sort of religious fanaticism instead of young people trying to uphold the beliefs of their chosen religion. These are regular, ordinary college kids who have worked hard to graduate from this good school and now speak up about a contradiction between the world of academia and their religion.
What isn't being highlighted is the story of Mary Ann Glendon. She is a law professor at Harvard and former ambassador to the Vatican. She was invited to accept the award of the Laetare Medal. This is described as the most prestigious honor awarded to American Catholics. This was to give cover to the poor decision to award the President his honorary award. Glendon, age 70, is a woman of true personal character and she declined the award. She wrote an open letter to Notre Dame's President Rev. John Jenkins. In this letter she articulated that she had no problem with the President speaking at the ceremony. She has a problem with the decision to honor him with the degree as such a strong advocate of abortion rights. Ms. Glendon quietly and respectfully lived her faith.
As Kass points out, "Notre Dame scrambled to find someone else to accept the Laetare Medal, but there were no takers." The media continues to ignore Ms. Glendon's action. They have chosen to go the route of trashing the students exercising their first amendment right of free speech as they protest the decision.
The people in Chicago and in the state of Illinois remember as State Senator Obama, he voted in favor of a law that allowed a born alive fetus from a failed abortion to be allowed to die without any life saving measures taken. It is infanticide, simply put. Obama was in the minority in believing this to be acceptable yet caved to his far left supporters.
It is interesting to note that while addressing the graduation ceremony at Arizona State University earlier this week, the President was not awarded an honorary degree. The administration said that as such a newly elected President, Obama has not achieved the distinction.
Common sense.
Let me begin by stating that I am not Catholic. I was raised in the Presbyterian church. And I am a pro-choice Republican woman. I am a proud member of the Baby Boomer generation and this how I see the whole thing.
There is an article in the Chicago Tribune written by columnist John Kass, one of my favorite newspaper writers, that goes to the heart of the controversy. I strive to maintain a common sense approach to big issues and Kass is such a voice of reason. The problem is not that the President was invited to speak at a commencement address at this Catholic university, it is in the awarding of an honorary law degree to a politician who is commonly thought to be the most pro-abortion President ever to be elected.
From what I have read on the subject, the university has hosted six sitting Presidents as commencement speakers while in office. What university would not think it a coup to have the President of the United States at graduation? The problem arises here due to the fact this is a private university with a very rich religious history and remains to present day as such. In 2004, as more and more discontent among the voters in our country rose and protested politicians who proclaim to be good, practicing Catholics yet run on the platform of the Democratic party which is pro-choice. The U.S. Catholic bishops issued a statement that "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles and that such persons should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That from the Kass article. So, the honorary degree is not within the tenet put forth in the official statement.
The slobbering media are portraying the students protesting the gesture as right wing nuts, overcome with some sort of religious fanaticism instead of young people trying to uphold the beliefs of their chosen religion. These are regular, ordinary college kids who have worked hard to graduate from this good school and now speak up about a contradiction between the world of academia and their religion.
What isn't being highlighted is the story of Mary Ann Glendon. She is a law professor at Harvard and former ambassador to the Vatican. She was invited to accept the award of the Laetare Medal. This is described as the most prestigious honor awarded to American Catholics. This was to give cover to the poor decision to award the President his honorary award. Glendon, age 70, is a woman of true personal character and she declined the award. She wrote an open letter to Notre Dame's President Rev. John Jenkins. In this letter she articulated that she had no problem with the President speaking at the ceremony. She has a problem with the decision to honor him with the degree as such a strong advocate of abortion rights. Ms. Glendon quietly and respectfully lived her faith.
As Kass points out, "Notre Dame scrambled to find someone else to accept the Laetare Medal, but there were no takers." The media continues to ignore Ms. Glendon's action. They have chosen to go the route of trashing the students exercising their first amendment right of free speech as they protest the decision.
The people in Chicago and in the state of Illinois remember as State Senator Obama, he voted in favor of a law that allowed a born alive fetus from a failed abortion to be allowed to die without any life saving measures taken. It is infanticide, simply put. Obama was in the minority in believing this to be acceptable yet caved to his far left supporters.
It is interesting to note that while addressing the graduation ceremony at Arizona State University earlier this week, the President was not awarded an honorary degree. The administration said that as such a newly elected President, Obama has not achieved the distinction.
Common sense.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Voter ID Bill In Texas Legislature
A bill moving through the legislative process in Texas this year with widespread support from both sides of the aisle is the Voter ID bill. On Monday, May 11 it was voted out of the House Elections Committee on a 5-4 vote. Four of the five Republicans and one of the four Democrats voted in favor of the bill. The no vote from the one Republican was due to the fact he wanted a stronger bill.
After looking at several versions of the Voter ID bill, the Elections Committee decided to vote out the Senate Voter ID bill, unchanged, which is taken as a positive development by supporters.
The bill would go into effect in time for the 2010 elections with no delay in implementation.
The bill requires a person to show a Photo ID in order to vote.
Some supporters are asking that the alternate ID option is removed, or at least a shortened list of acceptable alternate ID, should a voter come to a polling place without a photo ID.
Now the bill will go to the House floor for a vote. This will likely happen next week. A fight is predicted as Democrat leadership opposes the bill. It will not, however, be very surprising if several earnest elected officials decide to vote in favor of the legislation. Polling shows Democrats as well as Republican voters spanning across racial and ethnic lines support Voter Photo ID.
Perhaps for a welcome change of pace, legislators will listen to the people who put them there. A photo id required for every aspect of our modern lives. Opening a bank account? Cashing a check? Using a credit card? Everyone asks for a photo ID.
And, for the ridiculous argument that "the poor" will be disadvantaged? A non-starter. If somehow someone lives a life without a photo ID - usually a driver license or ID issued at the DPS - then the state will have a program to issue an ID to anyone unable to get one on his/her own.
After looking at several versions of the Voter ID bill, the Elections Committee decided to vote out the Senate Voter ID bill, unchanged, which is taken as a positive development by supporters.
The bill would go into effect in time for the 2010 elections with no delay in implementation.
The bill requires a person to show a Photo ID in order to vote.
Some supporters are asking that the alternate ID option is removed, or at least a shortened list of acceptable alternate ID, should a voter come to a polling place without a photo ID.
Now the bill will go to the House floor for a vote. This will likely happen next week. A fight is predicted as Democrat leadership opposes the bill. It will not, however, be very surprising if several earnest elected officials decide to vote in favor of the legislation. Polling shows Democrats as well as Republican voters spanning across racial and ethnic lines support Voter Photo ID.
Perhaps for a welcome change of pace, legislators will listen to the people who put them there. A photo id required for every aspect of our modern lives. Opening a bank account? Cashing a check? Using a credit card? Everyone asks for a photo ID.
And, for the ridiculous argument that "the poor" will be disadvantaged? A non-starter. If somehow someone lives a life without a photo ID - usually a driver license or ID issued at the DPS - then the state will have a program to issue an ID to anyone unable to get one on his/her own.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Hope Springs Eternal for the GOP
Driving home from a monthly Saturday morning meeting with like minded women who have a passion for politics, I was feeling quite disheartened. This is not a feeling I fall prey to very often as I try to remain optimistic that the American voter will come around to some common sense. However, when I listen to women who are educated, articulate, extremely well informed on current events and passionate as conservatives/Republicans go down a road I feel so strongly is the very worst road to travel to rebuild our party, I have to stop and ponder. Is the Republican party truly lost for the next generation or so?
According to recent Gallop polls, only one in every 4 voter now identifies as a Republican. The party has been badly damaged by squandering a dozen or so years of political dominance in Washington, by falling prey to corruption and the greed. Republican leaders, including former President G.W. Bush acted as though money grew on trees and spent like Democrats. The argument that Republicans manage our nation’s piggybank better than Democrats was lost. Add the ill-conceived planning process of the Iraq war with an absolute complete failure to communicate with the American people and we have a whole lot of ground to recover as a political party.
Like many I know, the last national election ignited renewed determination in myself to become more active politically, especially at the local level. I confess, I find national and international politics far more interesting than local and state politics, but the only way to rebuild a political party is to begin at the grassroots level with local and state organizations.
This can not be said enough - we need the help of all like-minded people. All effort is important and no job is too small. Everyone can truly make a difference, one person, one event, one meeting at a time. And, here is the key - we need outreach to all communities.
And, yes, we have to listen. Get out of the echo chamber - you know, only reading blogs written by writers with whom you agree, only talking to people with whom you agree politically, watching only the tv or radio stations with conservative dominance - and listen or read what the other side is putting out there. How can arguments be made to counter the opposite view if you don’t know what the opposite view is and are ready with a different idea? Maybe your head will feel as though it will explode (mine does) but it is very important to listen to the other side.
I am active in a local Republican women’s group. I vote every election. I went to a seminar recently given by an organization out of Arlington, Virginia that taught how to be a successful political candidate and how to organize a political campaign. And, yes, I am a wonk. Not everyone will be interested at this level but we have to encourage others to become well informed and interested.
And, please, may I respectfully ask that the tossing of the “RINO” bomb be stopped? There is no such creature. This is perhaps the most destructive conversation of all. Who is anyone to judge another’s political thought? Let us remember that we, as Republicans, share a common belief that the best government is limited government, that taxes should be kept low, that our nation’s security is the foremost responsibility of its leaders and citizens, and that we were all created to live in freedom. Fiscal conservatism is the core of the Republican party. Social conservatism is a part of both Democratic and Republican parties. Moderates are in both parties and also a part of those who identify as Independents. How have the Democrats turned former red states into purple and blue states? By running conservative Democrats and winning votes of Independents, they have discovered the successful ways of the Reagan glory days.
Ronald Reagan, the greatest American president in my lifetime, knew that politics involves the art of compromise. He was not afraid to sit down and talk to political enemies. Reagan taught Republicans that social conservatism is good but not everything. In today’s world of those wishing a litmus test on Republican candidates using the strictest of social tenets, Ronald Reagan would not measure up. He was divorced, a former Democrat, a union member and leader, and yet he was not afraid to keep his core political beliefs while reaching out to all. Reagan Democrats and Independents put him into office. There are still conservative Democrats and Independents out there waiting for the chance to vote Republican again. We have to earn those votes.
I cringe when I hear “kick him/her out” of the Republican party. That is the same intolerance we point to in the far left. I am saddened when I hear “it’s a waste of time” when speaking of a listening tour by politicians. Isn’t that what the Tea Party movement is all about? Isn’t the goal to get the elected officials to listen to us? And when recently Jeb Bush said we need to move past Reagan, he was right. He meant no disrespect. His father was VP to Reagan! Bush meant that we need fresh leadership and stop relying on the past. Reagan would be the last person to encourage stagnation. He would be out there encouraging the Big Tent. The Big Tent theory brought him into the White House. Now it needs a makeover. Maintaining fiscal conservative values and encouraging the values of family and community is a winning strategy.
Start a conversation. Reach out. Bring another along. Country first.
*CROSS POSTED AT: www.motherofallconservatives.com
According to recent Gallop polls, only one in every 4 voter now identifies as a Republican. The party has been badly damaged by squandering a dozen or so years of political dominance in Washington, by falling prey to corruption and the greed. Republican leaders, including former President G.W. Bush acted as though money grew on trees and spent like Democrats. The argument that Republicans manage our nation’s piggybank better than Democrats was lost. Add the ill-conceived planning process of the Iraq war with an absolute complete failure to communicate with the American people and we have a whole lot of ground to recover as a political party.
Like many I know, the last national election ignited renewed determination in myself to become more active politically, especially at the local level. I confess, I find national and international politics far more interesting than local and state politics, but the only way to rebuild a political party is to begin at the grassroots level with local and state organizations.
This can not be said enough - we need the help of all like-minded people. All effort is important and no job is too small. Everyone can truly make a difference, one person, one event, one meeting at a time. And, here is the key - we need outreach to all communities.
And, yes, we have to listen. Get out of the echo chamber - you know, only reading blogs written by writers with whom you agree, only talking to people with whom you agree politically, watching only the tv or radio stations with conservative dominance - and listen or read what the other side is putting out there. How can arguments be made to counter the opposite view if you don’t know what the opposite view is and are ready with a different idea? Maybe your head will feel as though it will explode (mine does) but it is very important to listen to the other side.
I am active in a local Republican women’s group. I vote every election. I went to a seminar recently given by an organization out of Arlington, Virginia that taught how to be a successful political candidate and how to organize a political campaign. And, yes, I am a wonk. Not everyone will be interested at this level but we have to encourage others to become well informed and interested.
And, please, may I respectfully ask that the tossing of the “RINO” bomb be stopped? There is no such creature. This is perhaps the most destructive conversation of all. Who is anyone to judge another’s political thought? Let us remember that we, as Republicans, share a common belief that the best government is limited government, that taxes should be kept low, that our nation’s security is the foremost responsibility of its leaders and citizens, and that we were all created to live in freedom. Fiscal conservatism is the core of the Republican party. Social conservatism is a part of both Democratic and Republican parties. Moderates are in both parties and also a part of those who identify as Independents. How have the Democrats turned former red states into purple and blue states? By running conservative Democrats and winning votes of Independents, they have discovered the successful ways of the Reagan glory days.
Ronald Reagan, the greatest American president in my lifetime, knew that politics involves the art of compromise. He was not afraid to sit down and talk to political enemies. Reagan taught Republicans that social conservatism is good but not everything. In today’s world of those wishing a litmus test on Republican candidates using the strictest of social tenets, Ronald Reagan would not measure up. He was divorced, a former Democrat, a union member and leader, and yet he was not afraid to keep his core political beliefs while reaching out to all. Reagan Democrats and Independents put him into office. There are still conservative Democrats and Independents out there waiting for the chance to vote Republican again. We have to earn those votes.
I cringe when I hear “kick him/her out” of the Republican party. That is the same intolerance we point to in the far left. I am saddened when I hear “it’s a waste of time” when speaking of a listening tour by politicians. Isn’t that what the Tea Party movement is all about? Isn’t the goal to get the elected officials to listen to us? And when recently Jeb Bush said we need to move past Reagan, he was right. He meant no disrespect. His father was VP to Reagan! Bush meant that we need fresh leadership and stop relying on the past. Reagan would be the last person to encourage stagnation. He would be out there encouraging the Big Tent. The Big Tent theory brought him into the White House. Now it needs a makeover. Maintaining fiscal conservative values and encouraging the values of family and community is a winning strategy.
Start a conversation. Reach out. Bring another along. Country first.
*CROSS POSTED AT: www.motherofallconservatives.com
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Mothers Come In All Forms
Happy Mother's Day to all those out there.
Two mothers of note have made some news in recent days. Elizabeth Edwards who is hawking a new book; and Kate Gosselin who is making lots of money hawking her family on a TLC reality show.
Back when John Edwards was running for President and Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer, I rose to defend her decision to continue on with the campaign. I defended her wishes to spend what time she has left by promoting her husband's political ambitions because I thought they were her ambitions, too. Obviously if a person is terminally ill with two very young children still at home, and this person chooses to go out and campaign as much as possible for her spouse, it must be her ambition, too. I thought she was strong and brave.
I should have known better. This is politics, after all. While hoping for the best in Elizabeth Edwards, she was in fact carrying out major fraud on the voters in the Democrat primary. John Edwards confessed his affair to his wife as he announced his candidacy and she made the decision to let it ride. She claims she didn't know it was a long time affair, or that she knew about the child until much later. The problem is, of course, why believe her now?
Oprah dutifully went to North Carolina and did the interview with John and Elizabeth at their home. I didn't watch the show - I outgrew Oprah years ago - but I have read some excerpts. All I can say is it is a real mess what this woman has allowed her family to become. What are the children to think? Are they to look upon their mother as a martyr? Their father as a selfish cad? Evidently it is still just all about them.
I don't understand why Elizabeth felt the need to pen the book. Revenge? Pity? It's not the money, there is plenty of that. She should have remained silent and tried to salvage a bit of dignity as all the truth comes out. She would have put her political party in a terrible bind if John Edwards had been the candidate - and it now comes out that some in his campaign staff made the decision to sabotage the campaign if he were to get to that point so that another candidate would move forward.
Kate Gosselin is another puzzlement. She and her husband have sold their family to TLC for the series "Jon and Kate Plus Eight" and now receive $75,000 per episode. They purchased a 26 acre spread in their state of Pennsylvania with a very large home to house the family of 10. They have a book on the bestseller list and another one coming. Kate has enjoyed lots of trips for publicity and the family has done their part, too. Now the network has taken to stirring up extra drama to get record ratings. Last season for the final episode, the viewers were led to believe there was matrimonial drama with the implication a split may be imminent. This after they received a free family trip to Hawaii for a dream wedding as a "renewal of vows" ceremony. Swarmy doesn't begin to describe this couple. They live large now due to the interest in their twins and sextuplets - all from artificial insemination - and now complain what an imposition their celebrity is on their private life. Jon was photographed leaving a bar with a 23 year old teacher and it's splashed on the cover of tabloids. Duh. How convenient that a new season is to begin soon and a new book will hit the bookstores soon. Imagine that.
At first the show was enjoyable. As a mother of one child now grown, I can't imagine having so many under the roof. But I had too many red flags flashing before my eyes after the last season. They have had too many free trips, all kinds of free products and Kate is now a regular spa visitor and traveler on her own as she plays super mom. She is not such a nice person to watch. They have been shown to be cashing in for all the kids are worth and it is troubling.
Mothers come in all forms.
Two mothers of note have made some news in recent days. Elizabeth Edwards who is hawking a new book; and Kate Gosselin who is making lots of money hawking her family on a TLC reality show.
Back when John Edwards was running for President and Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer, I rose to defend her decision to continue on with the campaign. I defended her wishes to spend what time she has left by promoting her husband's political ambitions because I thought they were her ambitions, too. Obviously if a person is terminally ill with two very young children still at home, and this person chooses to go out and campaign as much as possible for her spouse, it must be her ambition, too. I thought she was strong and brave.
I should have known better. This is politics, after all. While hoping for the best in Elizabeth Edwards, she was in fact carrying out major fraud on the voters in the Democrat primary. John Edwards confessed his affair to his wife as he announced his candidacy and she made the decision to let it ride. She claims she didn't know it was a long time affair, or that she knew about the child until much later. The problem is, of course, why believe her now?
Oprah dutifully went to North Carolina and did the interview with John and Elizabeth at their home. I didn't watch the show - I outgrew Oprah years ago - but I have read some excerpts. All I can say is it is a real mess what this woman has allowed her family to become. What are the children to think? Are they to look upon their mother as a martyr? Their father as a selfish cad? Evidently it is still just all about them.
I don't understand why Elizabeth felt the need to pen the book. Revenge? Pity? It's not the money, there is plenty of that. She should have remained silent and tried to salvage a bit of dignity as all the truth comes out. She would have put her political party in a terrible bind if John Edwards had been the candidate - and it now comes out that some in his campaign staff made the decision to sabotage the campaign if he were to get to that point so that another candidate would move forward.
Kate Gosselin is another puzzlement. She and her husband have sold their family to TLC for the series "Jon and Kate Plus Eight" and now receive $75,000 per episode. They purchased a 26 acre spread in their state of Pennsylvania with a very large home to house the family of 10. They have a book on the bestseller list and another one coming. Kate has enjoyed lots of trips for publicity and the family has done their part, too. Now the network has taken to stirring up extra drama to get record ratings. Last season for the final episode, the viewers were led to believe there was matrimonial drama with the implication a split may be imminent. This after they received a free family trip to Hawaii for a dream wedding as a "renewal of vows" ceremony. Swarmy doesn't begin to describe this couple. They live large now due to the interest in their twins and sextuplets - all from artificial insemination - and now complain what an imposition their celebrity is on their private life. Jon was photographed leaving a bar with a 23 year old teacher and it's splashed on the cover of tabloids. Duh. How convenient that a new season is to begin soon and a new book will hit the bookstores soon. Imagine that.
At first the show was enjoyable. As a mother of one child now grown, I can't imagine having so many under the roof. But I had too many red flags flashing before my eyes after the last season. They have had too many free trips, all kinds of free products and Kate is now a regular spa visitor and traveler on her own as she plays super mom. She is not such a nice person to watch. They have been shown to be cashing in for all the kids are worth and it is troubling.
Mothers come in all forms.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Border Security With Mexico
For our monthly meeting of Republican women, we were privileged to hear a talk given by Joan Neuhaus Schaan, Fellow in Homeland Security and Terrorism at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy. She is also the Executive Director for Houston-Harris County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Joan is an expert with unquestionable credentials. She was mobilized to active duty for Operation Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom and deployed to Northern Command's 24 Operational Intelligence Watch in Cheyenne Mountain. At the conclusion of her tour, she was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and authorized to wear the Joint Chiefs of Staff insignia.
Her topic was border security along the Mexican border. Here are some points made during her talk to us:
Mexico is rapidly becoming a Narco State - organized crime rules. It is the rule of lead (guns) and the rule of gold.
Approximately 6,000 deaths in Mexico just in the last year - compared to the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq since 2003 totalling 4222.
The Mexican culture is one of accepting money for favors.
219 municipalities in Mexico have political campaigns funded by illegal trafficking monies.
62% of law enforcement are on the payroll of drug cartels.
The press is silenced by the murder of journalists.
Yesterday, a story appeared on Reuters.com with the headline: U.S. Napolitano: Mexico border violence reduced. So, I emailed it to Joan and she replied that while the level may have declined, the reports out of Mexico indicate the levels remain above that of last year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54561L20090506
An article appeared in a Mexican newspaper on a joint operation between the Mexican Army and Federal Police in Chihuahua which states there have been 57 murders in the month of April 2009 which was higher than the total for April 2008. Napolitano was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated,"Yes we have seen a reduction in violence" due to the Mexican troops sent to Juarez. Even she admitted there is no way to know how long any reduction would last.
Homeland Security efforts along the Mexican border are woefully understaffed and under financed. While it is easy for the naysayers to claim it is racism to want secure borders, it goes to the corrupt and failing Mexican efforts to govern their own country. Mexican law enforcement officers and Chiefs of Police are fleeing to the U.S. border towns to escape death threats and kidnapping efforts on their families. It continues to spiral out of control.
Drug cartels are smuggling their goods by ever increasing sophistication. They build mock semi trailer trucks that sport the logos of American grocers and delivery services. The border is patrolled by thugs outfitted in military uniforms. Weapons are transported across the border for use by the drug cartels.
Environmental groups are suing along the border fence sections, claiming damage to native wildlife and terrain. Yet, statistics show that illegal immigration along the border at San Diego, for example, has been cut by more than 90%.
Border security is much more than simply keeping human beings out of our country. The transportation of drugs and weapons is much more destructive.
Joan is an expert with unquestionable credentials. She was mobilized to active duty for Operation Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom and deployed to Northern Command's 24 Operational Intelligence Watch in Cheyenne Mountain. At the conclusion of her tour, she was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and authorized to wear the Joint Chiefs of Staff insignia.
Her topic was border security along the Mexican border. Here are some points made during her talk to us:
Mexico is rapidly becoming a Narco State - organized crime rules. It is the rule of lead (guns) and the rule of gold.
Approximately 6,000 deaths in Mexico just in the last year - compared to the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq since 2003 totalling 4222.
The Mexican culture is one of accepting money for favors.
219 municipalities in Mexico have political campaigns funded by illegal trafficking monies.
62% of law enforcement are on the payroll of drug cartels.
The press is silenced by the murder of journalists.
Yesterday, a story appeared on Reuters.com with the headline: U.S. Napolitano: Mexico border violence reduced. So, I emailed it to Joan and she replied that while the level may have declined, the reports out of Mexico indicate the levels remain above that of last year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54561L20090506
An article appeared in a Mexican newspaper on a joint operation between the Mexican Army and Federal Police in Chihuahua which states there have been 57 murders in the month of April 2009 which was higher than the total for April 2008. Napolitano was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated,"Yes we have seen a reduction in violence" due to the Mexican troops sent to Juarez. Even she admitted there is no way to know how long any reduction would last.
Homeland Security efforts along the Mexican border are woefully understaffed and under financed. While it is easy for the naysayers to claim it is racism to want secure borders, it goes to the corrupt and failing Mexican efforts to govern their own country. Mexican law enforcement officers and Chiefs of Police are fleeing to the U.S. border towns to escape death threats and kidnapping efforts on their families. It continues to spiral out of control.
Drug cartels are smuggling their goods by ever increasing sophistication. They build mock semi trailer trucks that sport the logos of American grocers and delivery services. The border is patrolled by thugs outfitted in military uniforms. Weapons are transported across the border for use by the drug cartels.
Environmental groups are suing along the border fence sections, claiming damage to native wildlife and terrain. Yet, statistics show that illegal immigration along the border at San Diego, for example, has been cut by more than 90%.
Border security is much more than simply keeping human beings out of our country. The transportation of drugs and weapons is much more destructive.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Hog Wild Over H1N1 Virus
Lead by the current administration, the country went hog wild over the swine flu, now re-named the H1N1 Virus. The virus is not transmitted through consumption of pork on your dinner plate. It is, however, the flu. The virus can be spread from pig to human via sneezing or coughing and this can happen in a third world country like Mexico, from where this flu is believed to have originated. With the frequency of easy travel, the virus has spread to many countries around the world.
This current political administration is fond of announcing that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. It is hard to imagine that this would not also be the gameplan for an outbreak of a flu virus with no current vaccine available. Some in the administration have been quite honest in their assertions that this virus provides an excellent path to further government intervention into American health care.
The irony is Mexico has socialized medicine.
The administration was quick to trot out the new Homeland Security Secretary to quell panic. Panic brought on by the administration, but never mind that. The Health and Human Resources Secretary was not in place. As another nominee with tax problems, her confirmation was delayed. Also, the department is woefully understaffed due to not filling positions and even the CDC is working under an acting director. For an administration fully intent on pushing through universal health care, it was caught flat footed.
And, Vice President Biden provided his standard gaffe by informing an early morning talk show host that he has instructed his own family members to avoid public transportation - planes and subways in particular - and the administration had to quickly walk all that panic speech back. Thanks, Joe.
By contrast, former President Bush, when faced with the potential pandemic of SARS from Asia, put into place funding and research for antivirals, like Tamiflu. They war-gamed pandemic scenarios and increased the CDC’s sample identification capabilities. The Obama administration is continuing on with this established routine.
The government as nanny has reminded us on a daily basis all the actions your mother nagged you about as a child - wash your hands all throughout the day, cover your mouth if you cough, or cover your nose while sneezing, wash your hands, use caution in confined places, wash your hands, and if you feel ill stay home form school or work. Wash your hands. Do not infect co-workers or fellow students. It’s fairly common sense applications, something sorely missing in today’s world.
All across the country, schools are closed in a panic over the suspected illnesses of students. Today the news brought some realism in the form of the refusal of Howard University to close after one student may test positive for H1N1. Good for them.
This virus is now proving to be much milder than previously feared. It is no more than ordinary flu. In any average year, in the U.S., 39,000 deaths can be attributed to standard winter flu. The country doesn’t panic and bring everyday life to a standstill over that tragic fact. We employ basic reminders of personal hygiene and common sense. Wash your hands. Stay home if you aren’t feeling well.
Do not allow this administration to push through sweeping change in our health care system. Reforms are needed, to be sure. Free market reform is needed, with practical solutions. Socialized medicine picks winners and losers. Socialized medicine limits treatments. Less is not better if it is your loved one who is ill.
CROSS POSTED AT : www.motherofallconservatives.com
This current political administration is fond of announcing that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. It is hard to imagine that this would not also be the gameplan for an outbreak of a flu virus with no current vaccine available. Some in the administration have been quite honest in their assertions that this virus provides an excellent path to further government intervention into American health care.
The irony is Mexico has socialized medicine.
The administration was quick to trot out the new Homeland Security Secretary to quell panic. Panic brought on by the administration, but never mind that. The Health and Human Resources Secretary was not in place. As another nominee with tax problems, her confirmation was delayed. Also, the department is woefully understaffed due to not filling positions and even the CDC is working under an acting director. For an administration fully intent on pushing through universal health care, it was caught flat footed.
And, Vice President Biden provided his standard gaffe by informing an early morning talk show host that he has instructed his own family members to avoid public transportation - planes and subways in particular - and the administration had to quickly walk all that panic speech back. Thanks, Joe.
By contrast, former President Bush, when faced with the potential pandemic of SARS from Asia, put into place funding and research for antivirals, like Tamiflu. They war-gamed pandemic scenarios and increased the CDC’s sample identification capabilities. The Obama administration is continuing on with this established routine.
The government as nanny has reminded us on a daily basis all the actions your mother nagged you about as a child - wash your hands all throughout the day, cover your mouth if you cough, or cover your nose while sneezing, wash your hands, use caution in confined places, wash your hands, and if you feel ill stay home form school or work. Wash your hands. Do not infect co-workers or fellow students. It’s fairly common sense applications, something sorely missing in today’s world.
All across the country, schools are closed in a panic over the suspected illnesses of students. Today the news brought some realism in the form of the refusal of Howard University to close after one student may test positive for H1N1. Good for them.
This virus is now proving to be much milder than previously feared. It is no more than ordinary flu. In any average year, in the U.S., 39,000 deaths can be attributed to standard winter flu. The country doesn’t panic and bring everyday life to a standstill over that tragic fact. We employ basic reminders of personal hygiene and common sense. Wash your hands. Stay home if you aren’t feeling well.
Do not allow this administration to push through sweeping change in our health care system. Reforms are needed, to be sure. Free market reform is needed, with practical solutions. Socialized medicine picks winners and losers. Socialized medicine limits treatments. Less is not better if it is your loved one who is ill.
CROSS POSTED AT : www.motherofallconservatives.com
Saturday, May 02, 2009
The Dalai Lama: "I Love President Bush".
If any recent former president had a right to become bitter, petty and vindictive, it would be George W. Bush. From the shortest of transitions into his inauguration because of a long, contested election vote count, to the immediate refusal of special interests like the Congressional Black Caucus who thought it was ok to refuse to vote to approve his election, to rare credit for working with both sides of the aisle (and then being criticized by fellow Republicans for doing so), to ads run against him portrayed as Hitler and showing his assassination as a story line in a movie, to being portrayed as a war criminal by elected officials for keeping our country safe in the years after an historically horrific attack on our soil, and so on, he should be a bitter man. But he is not and that is perhaps the best revenge against the haters.
A post on National Review Online by Jay Nordlinger makes an interesting observation from the recent visit to the Boston area by the Dalai Lama. In uber liberal, ultra GW Bush hating Cambridge at MIT, an audience member asked the Dalai Lama for an example of a leader to be looked up to as a positive influence. Who did the Dalai Lama name? "President Bush. I met him personally and liked him very much. He was honest and straightforward, and that is very important. I may not have agreed with all his policies, but I thought he was very honest and a very good leader."
While acknowledging that he didn't agree with all of President Bush's policies, he was asked about the quality of leadership and positive influence. "I love him, said the Dalai Lama of President Bush, but as far as his policies are concerned, I have reservations." Understandable. No one agrees with all the policies of any president unless they are brain dead partisans.
As Jay Nordlinger wrote: "In my experience --and I'm just generalizing here-- the better the person, the more positive he is about George W. Bush. Certainly the less snarky and narrow." "This is particularly true of those who know something about tyranny, and the need to resist it: e.g., the Dalai Lama."
George W. Bush is certainly not given adequate credit for freeing 50 million people from dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is rarely given credit for saving millions in Africa from the still frequent deaths by malaria or for providing medicines to treat HIV/AIDS to the sick in Africa. Was he perfect? No. Did he fall prey to the spending like a drunken sailor culture in Washington? Yes.
Character matters. Beware of celebrity style politicians. They have little character and no core. It catches up with them every time.
A post on National Review Online by Jay Nordlinger makes an interesting observation from the recent visit to the Boston area by the Dalai Lama. In uber liberal, ultra GW Bush hating Cambridge at MIT, an audience member asked the Dalai Lama for an example of a leader to be looked up to as a positive influence. Who did the Dalai Lama name? "President Bush. I met him personally and liked him very much. He was honest and straightforward, and that is very important. I may not have agreed with all his policies, but I thought he was very honest and a very good leader."
While acknowledging that he didn't agree with all of President Bush's policies, he was asked about the quality of leadership and positive influence. "I love him, said the Dalai Lama of President Bush, but as far as his policies are concerned, I have reservations." Understandable. No one agrees with all the policies of any president unless they are brain dead partisans.
As Jay Nordlinger wrote: "In my experience --and I'm just generalizing here-- the better the person, the more positive he is about George W. Bush. Certainly the less snarky and narrow." "This is particularly true of those who know something about tyranny, and the need to resist it: e.g., the Dalai Lama."
George W. Bush is certainly not given adequate credit for freeing 50 million people from dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is rarely given credit for saving millions in Africa from the still frequent deaths by malaria or for providing medicines to treat HIV/AIDS to the sick in Africa. Was he perfect? No. Did he fall prey to the spending like a drunken sailor culture in Washington? Yes.
Character matters. Beware of celebrity style politicians. They have little character and no core. It catches up with them every time.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Bury St. Joseph To Sell Your House
Several years ago, my youngest sister had a house she owned on the market. She was hoping for a quick sale so she could move into another she was ready to buy. During a telephone conversation one day, I asked if she'd had any nibbles on the house yet. Nothing serious, yet, she said, but she purchased and buried St. Joseph to spur the process along.
I had no idea what she was talking about. St. who? Didn't St. Joseph make baby aspirin ?
We are not a Catholic family. My two sisters and I were raised in the Presbyterian church. Granted, I survived an all girls Catholic high school and wore a St. Christopher's medal on a chain as was the trend then. But still.
My sister went on to explain. St. Joseph is the patron saint of home and employment. Many believe that if you purchase a figurine of the saint and place it upside down as you bury it then you will quickly sell your house. A friend had explained the ritual to her. We were raised in Louisiana so it didn't seem so unusual to her. In Louisiana, rituals are a way of life - whether religious, southern traditions, or even voodoo. It's all ok.
So, I grinned a bit as I read an article the other day in the Houston Chronicle about the rise in sales of St. Joseph figurines. With housing sales in a slump in some parts of the country, there is a growing demand for them. Amazon, along with True Value and Ace Hardware stores has gotten into selling them in the more nontraditional religious arena.
From the article: "The interest in St. Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of Jesus, has a history in the real estate world. During the busts of the 1980s and 1990s, agents and homeowners revived the tradition, which might date to medieval Europe. As the story goes, a group of nuns received a needed parcel of land for their convent after burying their St. Joseph medallions and praying to the saint for aid."
Today kits are sold that include the figurine, the bag to bury them in, instructions and sample prayers.
I had no idea what she was talking about. St. who? Didn't St. Joseph make baby aspirin ?
We are not a Catholic family. My two sisters and I were raised in the Presbyterian church. Granted, I survived an all girls Catholic high school and wore a St. Christopher's medal on a chain as was the trend then. But still.
My sister went on to explain. St. Joseph is the patron saint of home and employment. Many believe that if you purchase a figurine of the saint and place it upside down as you bury it then you will quickly sell your house. A friend had explained the ritual to her. We were raised in Louisiana so it didn't seem so unusual to her. In Louisiana, rituals are a way of life - whether religious, southern traditions, or even voodoo. It's all ok.
So, I grinned a bit as I read an article the other day in the Houston Chronicle about the rise in sales of St. Joseph figurines. With housing sales in a slump in some parts of the country, there is a growing demand for them. Amazon, along with True Value and Ace Hardware stores has gotten into selling them in the more nontraditional religious arena.
From the article: "The interest in St. Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of Jesus, has a history in the real estate world. During the busts of the 1980s and 1990s, agents and homeowners revived the tradition, which might date to medieval Europe. As the story goes, a group of nuns received a needed parcel of land for their convent after burying their St. Joseph medallions and praying to the saint for aid."
Today kits are sold that include the figurine, the bag to bury them in, instructions and sample prayers.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Arlen Specter's Party Switch
Today Senator Arlen Specter, R-PA, announced his decision to switch to the other party. Specter has consistently voted with Democrats in the Senate and was a known target for the switch by the Democrats on behalf of Barack Obama.
So be it.
Senator Specter is up for re-election in 2010. He is facing a serious challenge from Pat Toomey. Specter is down in the polls by more than 20% according to a Rasmussen poll released on 4/24/09. Specter began his career as a Democrat when he ran for Prosecutor in Philadelphia, calling himself a "Kennedy Democrat." He turned on the Democrats as a means of political expediency. Now he turns on the Republicans. He claims the Republican party left him. He has proven to be not just a social liberal but also a fiscal liberal by casting his vote for the Obama spending bill, with only two other Repubicans in the Senate. Seems he left the party himself.
Toomey is the former president of Club for Growth, a group promoting anti-tax positions. Specter's unfavorable numbers rose when he became one of only three U.S. Senators to vote for President Obama's massive spending bill, full of earmarks. Rasmussen Reports called Specter's numbers as "stunningly poor" for a long time politician. 55% of voters have an unfavorable opinion of Specter.
Specter, fearing loss in the Republican primary, began running an ad this month blaming Toomey for supporting privatization of social security and limiting oversight of Wall Street as a congressman. Specter certainly sounds like a Democrat by his own advertisement.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and he released the following statement:
"Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve.”
That sums it up nicely. Specter decided to put his own political survival over the best interests of his own party. He claims he was a strong Republican for the past 30 years. He certainly enjoyed riding the coattails of Ronald Reagan's popularity and being in the majority thanks to Reagan. Now the times are tougher and he bails.
Good riddance. Let's see how long the glow lasts with the Democrats. Can anyone say "Jim Jeffords"?
So be it.
Senator Specter is up for re-election in 2010. He is facing a serious challenge from Pat Toomey. Specter is down in the polls by more than 20% according to a Rasmussen poll released on 4/24/09. Specter began his career as a Democrat when he ran for Prosecutor in Philadelphia, calling himself a "Kennedy Democrat." He turned on the Democrats as a means of political expediency. Now he turns on the Republicans. He claims the Republican party left him. He has proven to be not just a social liberal but also a fiscal liberal by casting his vote for the Obama spending bill, with only two other Repubicans in the Senate. Seems he left the party himself.
Toomey is the former president of Club for Growth, a group promoting anti-tax positions. Specter's unfavorable numbers rose when he became one of only three U.S. Senators to vote for President Obama's massive spending bill, full of earmarks. Rasmussen Reports called Specter's numbers as "stunningly poor" for a long time politician. 55% of voters have an unfavorable opinion of Specter.
Specter, fearing loss in the Republican primary, began running an ad this month blaming Toomey for supporting privatization of social security and limiting oversight of Wall Street as a congressman. Specter certainly sounds like a Democrat by his own advertisement.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and he released the following statement:
"Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve.”
That sums it up nicely. Specter decided to put his own political survival over the best interests of his own party. He claims he was a strong Republican for the past 30 years. He certainly enjoyed riding the coattails of Ronald Reagan's popularity and being in the majority thanks to Reagan. Now the times are tougher and he bails.
Good riddance. Let's see how long the glow lasts with the Democrats. Can anyone say "Jim Jeffords"?
Moving On Only For Conservatives
Remember the inception of MoveOn.org by billionaire socialist George Soros? It was all about moving on from the sex scandel that led to the impeachment vote on former President Bill Clinton after he was caught lying to the feds about it. Now, more and more, it seems moving on is only to be done by conservatives, especially as it pertains to the homeland security and national defense decisions made by George W. Bush while he was in the oval office.
It would appear that the left wing of the Democratic party is now determined to bring our country to the status of a banana republic. When President Bush came into office in January, 2001, Republicans were told to stop criticizing actions of the Clinton administration as they led up to the Bush years. Republicans were ridiculed for blaming Bill Clinton for everything.
Fortunately for the Clinton administration, President Bush was not inclined to go after his predecessor about anything. Much could have been made, for instance, about the blind neglect of our national security and the effect it had on the onset of the tragic events of 9/11/01. The Clinton administration was much more concerned with domestic agendas over foreign policy. And then they simply let the clock run out.
President Bush did not have the luxury of devoting the bulk of his energy to domestic policy. The terror attacks of 9/11/01 completely changed his presidency into that of a war presidency. Unlike the Clinton administration and now the Obama administration who both came into office and decided to ignore Republicans as they rammed through legislation, the Bush administration went out of its way to work with liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle on domestic policy.
As is the pattern in a banana republic, now the Bush-hating left would like to continue on with hearings and prosecution of those who kept our country safe after an historic terrorist attack. They would like to reward the Bush administration for making hard legal decisions at a time of monumental national distress by trying to politicize legal opinion. A banana republic prosecutes the previous leadership as the new one emerges. It is all for political vengeance. This is the Democratic party today.
President Obama de-classified CIA memos that deal with methods of interrogation used since 9/11/01. The very Democrats who did not raise a concern over any of the methods used on alleged terrorists in custody now feign total innocence. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says she wasn’t told about the use of waterboarding, for example. Yet, in 2007 the Washington Post ran a story about a briefing held in 2002 for members of the Intelligence Committees in both Houses of Congress, on which Pelosi sat.
So, if testimony is to be taken from the previous administration on the methods used to keep our country safe, we must also question, on the record, the Clinton administration and so forth. Clinton was the president who signed into effect the rendition used today. Clinton was the president who signed off on countries who are far more aggressive than the U.S. to question prisoners.
To politicize legal decisions, as President Obama has now left the door open for despite his tepid denials, and to run to the CIA headquarters the day after allowing the CIA memos to be made public and reassuring the agents that they were not to be targets of investigations as a CYA for his own poll numbers, the President is encouraging political discourse at its lowest form. He has yet again proven to act in one way as he proclaims otherwise.
The presidential candidate who campaigned on “moving on” and leaving the past in the past, the man who would be post partisan and bring everyone together, is a sham. He is the lowest sort of politcian after all. President Obama shows himself to be more concerned about his own image to the far left than to the safety of our country.
Cross Posted at: www.motherofallconservatives.com, where I am proud to be a weekly contributor.
It would appear that the left wing of the Democratic party is now determined to bring our country to the status of a banana republic. When President Bush came into office in January, 2001, Republicans were told to stop criticizing actions of the Clinton administration as they led up to the Bush years. Republicans were ridiculed for blaming Bill Clinton for everything.
Fortunately for the Clinton administration, President Bush was not inclined to go after his predecessor about anything. Much could have been made, for instance, about the blind neglect of our national security and the effect it had on the onset of the tragic events of 9/11/01. The Clinton administration was much more concerned with domestic agendas over foreign policy. And then they simply let the clock run out.
President Bush did not have the luxury of devoting the bulk of his energy to domestic policy. The terror attacks of 9/11/01 completely changed his presidency into that of a war presidency. Unlike the Clinton administration and now the Obama administration who both came into office and decided to ignore Republicans as they rammed through legislation, the Bush administration went out of its way to work with liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle on domestic policy.
As is the pattern in a banana republic, now the Bush-hating left would like to continue on with hearings and prosecution of those who kept our country safe after an historic terrorist attack. They would like to reward the Bush administration for making hard legal decisions at a time of monumental national distress by trying to politicize legal opinion. A banana republic prosecutes the previous leadership as the new one emerges. It is all for political vengeance. This is the Democratic party today.
President Obama de-classified CIA memos that deal with methods of interrogation used since 9/11/01. The very Democrats who did not raise a concern over any of the methods used on alleged terrorists in custody now feign total innocence. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says she wasn’t told about the use of waterboarding, for example. Yet, in 2007 the Washington Post ran a story about a briefing held in 2002 for members of the Intelligence Committees in both Houses of Congress, on which Pelosi sat.
So, if testimony is to be taken from the previous administration on the methods used to keep our country safe, we must also question, on the record, the Clinton administration and so forth. Clinton was the president who signed into effect the rendition used today. Clinton was the president who signed off on countries who are far more aggressive than the U.S. to question prisoners.
To politicize legal decisions, as President Obama has now left the door open for despite his tepid denials, and to run to the CIA headquarters the day after allowing the CIA memos to be made public and reassuring the agents that they were not to be targets of investigations as a CYA for his own poll numbers, the President is encouraging political discourse at its lowest form. He has yet again proven to act in one way as he proclaims otherwise.
The presidential candidate who campaigned on “moving on” and leaving the past in the past, the man who would be post partisan and bring everyone together, is a sham. He is the lowest sort of politcian after all. President Obama shows himself to be more concerned about his own image to the far left than to the safety of our country.
Cross Posted at: www.motherofallconservatives.com, where I am proud to be a weekly contributor.
Monday, April 27, 2009
You May Live In Texas If...
This was in my newsletter from Memorial West Republican Women this month. I think we can all use a chuckle or two. Forget about the over dramatization of the swine flu - it's not the plague, folks - and enjoy a grin or two.
Courtesy of Jeff Foxworthy:
If someone in a Lowe's store offers you assistance and they don't work there, you may live in Texas.
If you've had a lengthy telephone conversation with someone who dialed a wrong number, you may live in Texas.
If you measure distance in hours, you may live in Texas.
If the speed limit on the highway is 55 mph - you're going 80 and everybody's passing you, you may live in Texas.
If you find 60 degrees "a little chilly", you may live in Texas.
OK. Refreshed? Now, let's get back to plotting world domination.
Courtesy of Jeff Foxworthy:
If someone in a Lowe's store offers you assistance and they don't work there, you may live in Texas.
If you've had a lengthy telephone conversation with someone who dialed a wrong number, you may live in Texas.
If you measure distance in hours, you may live in Texas.
If the speed limit on the highway is 55 mph - you're going 80 and everybody's passing you, you may live in Texas.
If you find 60 degrees "a little chilly", you may live in Texas.
OK. Refreshed? Now, let's get back to plotting world domination.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Leadership Institute Comes To Houston
The Leadership Institute hosted an all day workshop in Houston Saturday. Headquartered in Arlington, VA, the grassroots coordinator, Patricia Simpson, organized a full day of inspirational and knowledgeable speakers. The focus was on grassroots candidate training and campaign organization.
The speakers included Barry Aarons, Senior Fellow, Americans for Tax Reform and Adjunct Fellow, Institute for Policy Innovation. He was good speaking to campaign organization and tips about effective polling and political ads. He is a lifelong friend of Mrs. Joe Lieberman from his childhood in Bronx, NY and considers Senator Lieberman a dear friend. He is also close to Senator John McCain, as he is a long time resident of Arizona.
My favorite speaker was Joel Mowbray. If the name is not familiar, you would recognize him from all the msm and cable network channels as a political pundit and he is a columnist for Knight-Ridder Tribune as a nationally syndicated columnist. He distinguished himself as an investigative journalist by his expose on the State Departments' Visa Express program in Saudi Arabia and lead to the firing of Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, Mary Ryan. He was also the first journalist in America to review the visa application forms of the 9/11 terrorists and he uncovered the fact that all 15 of them should have been denied. Joel was an excellent speaker because he is funny and engaging with his audience. Plus he gave us a couple of juicy insider gossip stories on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and David Schuster. Yummy stuff.
The Leadership Institute was impressed about the number of attendees here in Houston. On a beautiful Saturday, more than 100 people turned out. Most were from the Houston metro area but some came from across the state. One woman I sat next to came in from Fort Worth. The woman on my other side is planning a run for Constable in her district.
Joel Mowbray told us several times that we are not normal. The small percentage of Americans who would consider spending a Saturday focusing on politics and campaigns makes us far from the normal American.
I like that.
The speakers included Barry Aarons, Senior Fellow, Americans for Tax Reform and Adjunct Fellow, Institute for Policy Innovation. He was good speaking to campaign organization and tips about effective polling and political ads. He is a lifelong friend of Mrs. Joe Lieberman from his childhood in Bronx, NY and considers Senator Lieberman a dear friend. He is also close to Senator John McCain, as he is a long time resident of Arizona.
My favorite speaker was Joel Mowbray. If the name is not familiar, you would recognize him from all the msm and cable network channels as a political pundit and he is a columnist for Knight-Ridder Tribune as a nationally syndicated columnist. He distinguished himself as an investigative journalist by his expose on the State Departments' Visa Express program in Saudi Arabia and lead to the firing of Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, Mary Ryan. He was also the first journalist in America to review the visa application forms of the 9/11 terrorists and he uncovered the fact that all 15 of them should have been denied. Joel was an excellent speaker because he is funny and engaging with his audience. Plus he gave us a couple of juicy insider gossip stories on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and David Schuster. Yummy stuff.
The Leadership Institute was impressed about the number of attendees here in Houston. On a beautiful Saturday, more than 100 people turned out. Most were from the Houston metro area but some came from across the state. One woman I sat next to came in from Fort Worth. The woman on my other side is planning a run for Constable in her district.
Joel Mowbray told us several times that we are not normal. The small percentage of Americans who would consider spending a Saturday focusing on politics and campaigns makes us far from the normal American.
I like that.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Montana Delegation Says No To Gitmo Terrorists
President Obama fulfilled a campaign trail pledge and closed Guantanamo, on paper only, in his first days in office. The problem is what to do with all those pesky prisoners - the alleged terrorists wishing to kill us all in the name of their religion. There are 240 inmates now looking for a new home.
The 240 alleged terrorists, captured on the battlefield, won't be going back to their home countries because they are no longer welcome there. During the G20/NATO European apology tour of team Obama, pressure was put upon our allies to take some of these alleged terrorists. As with the rest of his agenda, Obama failed in placing any of the alleged terrorists, except for one. France said they will take one. The rest of the European countries asked, if these men are not so bad, why don't you just keep them in the U.S.? The Obama administration won't cop to that slap but it is early and resolute proof that traditional allies, the former friends of GW Bush, are now laughing at us. They are laughing at President Obama and his naive approach to foreign policy. They are laughing at his world view. Recently President Sarkozy, after warmly welcoming Obama to France, for the cameras, was quoted after the visit as describing Obama as "unoriginal", and "insincere", etc. You get the picture. No love lost there.
So, back to the good old U.S.of A. Seems the city of Hardin, Montana (population 3,400) has stepped up and offered to house the 240 alleged terrorists in their spiffy new jail sitting empty.
The City Council voted Tuesday on this fine idea. The vote was 5-0.
The city borders the Crow Indian Reservation. I don't know if the Indians had a vote. The jail was built two years ago and the city needs tenants. The construction loans - price tag $27 million - are in default.
But wait. "Not on my watch, " said Senator Max Baucus. Democrat Baucus and fellow Democrat Senator Jon Tester, along with Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg have all decided it isn't going to happen.
See, it's the details that get you every time. Where will these alleged terrorists go?
The 240 alleged terrorists, captured on the battlefield, won't be going back to their home countries because they are no longer welcome there. During the G20/NATO European apology tour of team Obama, pressure was put upon our allies to take some of these alleged terrorists. As with the rest of his agenda, Obama failed in placing any of the alleged terrorists, except for one. France said they will take one. The rest of the European countries asked, if these men are not so bad, why don't you just keep them in the U.S.? The Obama administration won't cop to that slap but it is early and resolute proof that traditional allies, the former friends of GW Bush, are now laughing at us. They are laughing at President Obama and his naive approach to foreign policy. They are laughing at his world view. Recently President Sarkozy, after warmly welcoming Obama to France, for the cameras, was quoted after the visit as describing Obama as "unoriginal", and "insincere", etc. You get the picture. No love lost there.
So, back to the good old U.S.of A. Seems the city of Hardin, Montana (population 3,400) has stepped up and offered to house the 240 alleged terrorists in their spiffy new jail sitting empty.
The City Council voted Tuesday on this fine idea. The vote was 5-0.
The city borders the Crow Indian Reservation. I don't know if the Indians had a vote. The jail was built two years ago and the city needs tenants. The construction loans - price tag $27 million - are in default.
But wait. "Not on my watch, " said Senator Max Baucus. Democrat Baucus and fellow Democrat Senator Jon Tester, along with Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg have all decided it isn't going to happen.
See, it's the details that get you every time. Where will these alleged terrorists go?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Obama Doctrine
The problem with a narcisstic president is that everything is all about him. The latest apology/I’m not G.W. Bush tour was a dismal failure. President Obama attended the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad. This summit was on the heels of the G-20 Summit in London and the NATO summit in Strasbourg, France. At both, Obama came away empty-handed. The goal was for this administration to ask for and receive agreement that Europe needs mega stimulus packages to combat the economic woes there and to ask for and receive additional troops to support our efforts in Afghanistan.
President Obama received a promise from France to take one prisoner released from Gitmo and NATO pledged some additional support in training military police, not troops on the ground. The idea of additional economic stimulus packages in Europe was soundly rejected by all.
The problem is President Obama thinks that by going to every gathering and apologizing for perceived greviences allows him to receive applause at the expense of his own country. Much has been written about all the love for the President. Unfortunately this does not translate to actions. President Sarkozy of France called Obama words like insincere and unoriginal. President Obama forgets that former President Bush had a good relationship with both Sarkozy and Germany’s Angela Merkel, the two European leaders Obama came to impress. By going out of his way to claim to be a different - read better - President than Bush, he insults them, too.
President Obama was all too happy to embrace the overtures from Hugo Chavez. Just last month Chavez called Obama an “ignoramus”. Chavez is quoted as saying he welcomes Obama with the same handshake he welcomed Bush eight years ago. We know what happened after that.
Obama sat through fifty minutes of ranting by Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega on the evils of America. Never mind that Ortega supported communist guerrillas in El Salvador and undermined other Latin America countries in the 1980’s. When asked for a response, Obama said, “I’m grateful the President did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.” Instead of listing the goodness of America, instead of thanking the military that makes the U.S. such a strong and safe country, Obama was happy not to be blamed in the rant of Ortega. Unbelievable.
Obama either doesn’t understand or just doesn’t care - his first duty is to defend the U.S. To defend our honor is part of the job description. It’s not about him, it is about America.
The Obama Doctrine is summed up by this quote from Time Magazine: “And so we’re still going to have very tough negotiations on a whole host of issues. In Europe, people believe in our plan for Afghanistan, but their politics are still such that it’s hard for leaders to want to send more troops into Afghanistan. That’s not going to change because I’m popular in Europe or leaders think that I’ve been respectful towards them. On the other hand, by having established those better relations, it means that among the population there’s more confidence that working with the United States is beneficial, and they are going to try to do more than they might otherwise have done.”
By an ideology that is naive to the ways of international leaders, Obama “hopes” that by talking without pre-conditions to men who wish us ill, such as Chavez or Ahmadinejad, he is slapped with insults. Why did he not just do what the King of Spain did in 2007 and tell Chavez to shut up as he hogged the stage once again? Why doesn’t Obama forge ahead with the Columbia free trade agreement to reward that country’s efforts in improving human rights and labor conditions instead of the handshakes with Chavez, the proud socialist who jails journalists and grabs private lands for his own distribution goals?
For President Obama it is all about being loved. That is a pity. Obama’s aides claim by doing the apology tours he is planting seeds of new relationships. The question is what kind of relationships? We will soon know what blooms.
*Cross Posted at www.motherofallconservatives.com
President Obama received a promise from France to take one prisoner released from Gitmo and NATO pledged some additional support in training military police, not troops on the ground. The idea of additional economic stimulus packages in Europe was soundly rejected by all.
The problem is President Obama thinks that by going to every gathering and apologizing for perceived greviences allows him to receive applause at the expense of his own country. Much has been written about all the love for the President. Unfortunately this does not translate to actions. President Sarkozy of France called Obama words like insincere and unoriginal. President Obama forgets that former President Bush had a good relationship with both Sarkozy and Germany’s Angela Merkel, the two European leaders Obama came to impress. By going out of his way to claim to be a different - read better - President than Bush, he insults them, too.
President Obama was all too happy to embrace the overtures from Hugo Chavez. Just last month Chavez called Obama an “ignoramus”. Chavez is quoted as saying he welcomes Obama with the same handshake he welcomed Bush eight years ago. We know what happened after that.
Obama sat through fifty minutes of ranting by Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega on the evils of America. Never mind that Ortega supported communist guerrillas in El Salvador and undermined other Latin America countries in the 1980’s. When asked for a response, Obama said, “I’m grateful the President did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.” Instead of listing the goodness of America, instead of thanking the military that makes the U.S. such a strong and safe country, Obama was happy not to be blamed in the rant of Ortega. Unbelievable.
Obama either doesn’t understand or just doesn’t care - his first duty is to defend the U.S. To defend our honor is part of the job description. It’s not about him, it is about America.
The Obama Doctrine is summed up by this quote from Time Magazine: “And so we’re still going to have very tough negotiations on a whole host of issues. In Europe, people believe in our plan for Afghanistan, but their politics are still such that it’s hard for leaders to want to send more troops into Afghanistan. That’s not going to change because I’m popular in Europe or leaders think that I’ve been respectful towards them. On the other hand, by having established those better relations, it means that among the population there’s more confidence that working with the United States is beneficial, and they are going to try to do more than they might otherwise have done.”
By an ideology that is naive to the ways of international leaders, Obama “hopes” that by talking without pre-conditions to men who wish us ill, such as Chavez or Ahmadinejad, he is slapped with insults. Why did he not just do what the King of Spain did in 2007 and tell Chavez to shut up as he hogged the stage once again? Why doesn’t Obama forge ahead with the Columbia free trade agreement to reward that country’s efforts in improving human rights and labor conditions instead of the handshakes with Chavez, the proud socialist who jails journalists and grabs private lands for his own distribution goals?
For President Obama it is all about being loved. That is a pity. Obama’s aides claim by doing the apology tours he is planting seeds of new relationships. The question is what kind of relationships? We will soon know what blooms.
*Cross Posted at www.motherofallconservatives.com
Monday, April 20, 2009
Roxana Saberi Used As Pawn In Tehran
Roxana Saberi, an Iranian-American journalist was arrested in January for buying a bottle of wine in Iran. A Muslim theocracy, alcohol is banned in Iran. Ms. Saberi, 31, has lived in Iran for the last 6 years. I assume she was familiar with this law.
Unfortunately, Ms. Saberi's lack of judgment has placed her in the position of pawn between Iran and the U.S. Ms. Saberi is a dual citizen. She also had let her journalist credentials expire in Iran. President Obama recently reached out to the Iranian people by releasing a dvd with a speech to them, extolling the wishes of peace and kumbiya between our two countries. Obama has reached out to Ahmadinejad and that has fed the mad dictator's ego. The Bush administration had already begun talks with Iranian officials but not at the Presidential level. Obama will soon understand the validity of that approach. Making a loud point of doing things differently than the previous administration solely for the ability to say you are, is not effective foreign policy. It is schoolyard nonsense.
As a dual citizen, Saberi was an easy target. By letting her press credentials expire, she was committing a big mistake. Not to mention openly buying wine. Iran wants three Iranian s taken into custody in Iraq, in 2007, to be released. Iran claims these men are diplomats. The U.S. claims they have links to the Revolutionary Guards. Saberi is now a bargaining chip.
Saberi was tried in what is described in an unusually swift trial by in the Revolutionary Court as a security-related case. She received her verdict last Monday - eight years in prison for spying for the U.S.
Secretary of State Clinton said she was "deeply disappointed" and demanded Saberi's release. The Foreign Ministry originally charged her as working as a reporter without press credentials. Then the charge was changed to spying.
The justice system in Iran is controlled by Aytollah Khomeni, not Ahmadinejad. You'll remember Khomeni came into power in Iran due to the naive foreign policy of failed Democrat President Jimmy Carter. He, too, thought all he had to do was speak to those who wish us ill and everything would be worked out. He learned the hard way that foreign leaders in the middle east look at the world differently.
Saberi was raised in Fargo, N.D. She has worked for NPR, BBC, FOX News, and also here in Houston in the late 1990's. Her attorney vows to appeal the verdict and sentence.
Unfortunately, Ms. Saberi's lack of judgment has placed her in the position of pawn between Iran and the U.S. Ms. Saberi is a dual citizen. She also had let her journalist credentials expire in Iran. President Obama recently reached out to the Iranian people by releasing a dvd with a speech to them, extolling the wishes of peace and kumbiya between our two countries. Obama has reached out to Ahmadinejad and that has fed the mad dictator's ego. The Bush administration had already begun talks with Iranian officials but not at the Presidential level. Obama will soon understand the validity of that approach. Making a loud point of doing things differently than the previous administration solely for the ability to say you are, is not effective foreign policy. It is schoolyard nonsense.
As a dual citizen, Saberi was an easy target. By letting her press credentials expire, she was committing a big mistake. Not to mention openly buying wine. Iran wants three Iranian s taken into custody in Iraq, in 2007, to be released. Iran claims these men are diplomats. The U.S. claims they have links to the Revolutionary Guards. Saberi is now a bargaining chip.
Saberi was tried in what is described in an unusually swift trial by in the Revolutionary Court as a security-related case. She received her verdict last Monday - eight years in prison for spying for the U.S.
Secretary of State Clinton said she was "deeply disappointed" and demanded Saberi's release. The Foreign Ministry originally charged her as working as a reporter without press credentials. Then the charge was changed to spying.
The justice system in Iran is controlled by Aytollah Khomeni, not Ahmadinejad. You'll remember Khomeni came into power in Iran due to the naive foreign policy of failed Democrat President Jimmy Carter. He, too, thought all he had to do was speak to those who wish us ill and everything would be worked out. He learned the hard way that foreign leaders in the middle east look at the world differently.
Saberi was raised in Fargo, N.D. She has worked for NPR, BBC, FOX News, and also here in Houston in the late 1990's. Her attorney vows to appeal the verdict and sentence.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Governor Perry Rallies Crowd With Bluster
The good news is that a recent Rasmussen poll shows that three-quarters of Texas respondents stated they did not want the State of Texas to secede. The not so terrific news is that three out of ten think it is written that Texas may secede.
Governor Rick Perry was a Tea Party speaker in Austin. Much has been made that these words flew from his mouth: "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great Union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that." That quote was taped by R.G. Ratcliffe, reporter for the Houston Chronicle. Chronicle columnist Rick Casey writes of Perry's speech in today's edition.
As the tape shows, Perry said "We've got a great Union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it." It was the end of the heralded blurb that implies Texas would have the option. This is on the level of a parent threatening punishment to a misbehaving child. Threats not to be followed through with any true action are just hot air. This was just some crowd inspiring bluster from the governor. Bluster caught on tape and played out nationally.
It's a bit embarrassing when your state's top elected official exaggerates for effect. Sure, some proud Texans were excited by such rhetoric but, truly, what's the point? Perry got the headlines he sought as tough guy. Let's remember, Perry is running for re-election. He is due some credit for refusing some of the stimulus package going to the states but is disingenuous to suggest he is refusing it all.
Recently, Controller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas, Susan Combs, spoke to a Republican Women's group to which I belong and she pointed out that in fact Texas will be receiving a good amount of stimulus money from Washington. This is looked upon as money sent to Washington by Texas taxpayers in the first place and if Texas refuses the money it will go to another state. The money Perry is refusing is the money going to unemployment benefits. In order for Texas to accept the funds, the state unemployment compensation laws would have to be changed. This would prove to be a future liability for Texas taxpayers when the federal funds run out.
I don't often agree with Texan Kinky Friedman but his reference to Governor Perry's Tea Party remarks included the characterization that Perry has "gone off the tracks a little bit." That is a good description. Friedman said, "You know, we tried that once. I would remind him that there was a great visionary hero named Sam Houston who traveled all over the state warning us not to do it - that it would cost great heartache and bloodshed."
Let's hope the governor chooses his words a bit more carefully next time.
Governor Rick Perry was a Tea Party speaker in Austin. Much has been made that these words flew from his mouth: "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great Union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that." That quote was taped by R.G. Ratcliffe, reporter for the Houston Chronicle. Chronicle columnist Rick Casey writes of Perry's speech in today's edition.
As the tape shows, Perry said "We've got a great Union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it." It was the end of the heralded blurb that implies Texas would have the option. This is on the level of a parent threatening punishment to a misbehaving child. Threats not to be followed through with any true action are just hot air. This was just some crowd inspiring bluster from the governor. Bluster caught on tape and played out nationally.
It's a bit embarrassing when your state's top elected official exaggerates for effect. Sure, some proud Texans were excited by such rhetoric but, truly, what's the point? Perry got the headlines he sought as tough guy. Let's remember, Perry is running for re-election. He is due some credit for refusing some of the stimulus package going to the states but is disingenuous to suggest he is refusing it all.
Recently, Controller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas, Susan Combs, spoke to a Republican Women's group to which I belong and she pointed out that in fact Texas will be receiving a good amount of stimulus money from Washington. This is looked upon as money sent to Washington by Texas taxpayers in the first place and if Texas refuses the money it will go to another state. The money Perry is refusing is the money going to unemployment benefits. In order for Texas to accept the funds, the state unemployment compensation laws would have to be changed. This would prove to be a future liability for Texas taxpayers when the federal funds run out.
I don't often agree with Texan Kinky Friedman but his reference to Governor Perry's Tea Party remarks included the characterization that Perry has "gone off the tracks a little bit." That is a good description. Friedman said, "You know, we tried that once. I would remind him that there was a great visionary hero named Sam Houston who traveled all over the state warning us not to do it - that it would cost great heartache and bloodshed."
Let's hope the governor chooses his words a bit more carefully next time.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
After the Tea Party
The Tea Party in Houston was a big success. As happened across the country, in all 50 states, organized rallies brought people of all political persuasions, and those not politically active, together in the common protest of government running wildly out of control. The crowd for the Houston rally was estimated at 8,000. There were other rallies in suburbs around the area, too. Not bad for a Wednesday afternoon.
Now that the Tea Party is over, what is next? Here's a suggestion: go to www.aftertheteaparty.com and find out how to stay involved on the issues you are passionate about.
The media in this country showed their true colors again - much as we saw during the presidential campaign as they cheered openly for Barack Obama - and dismissed or tried to ignore the protests of ordinary Americans fed up with the continued growth of government that reaches into their lives every day, with no end in sight. Those on two losing cable networks decided it was amusing to turn the words tea bag into a sexual joke - just like the juvenile male view of candidate Obama and thrills running up their legs over him. Professionals all.
Susan Roesgen, of CNN, is coming under fire on the Internet at YouTube for her obnoxious "interview" with a protester in Chicago yesterday. She decided to berate and debate him, as he held his toddler daughter, instead of allowing him to answer her question. She was all about accusations and condescending statements. Then she cut away when those around him objected to her exercise in vanity. She tossed it back to the studio while remarking that the Tea Parties were promoted by "right wing, conservative FOX". Professional.
CNN is behind FOX, and even MSNBC now in ratings for cable networks. Gee, wonder why.
The common theme that comes from the White House related by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is that these protests don't amount to much. He claims the President isn't even aware of them. Really? If President Bush was said to not be aware of citizen's opinions, especially with the numbers of these protesters, he was accused of being out of touch. Double standard? Gibbs hopes the media will completely drop coverage, of course. This president is still in his honeymoon stage and it is unusual, to say the least, for such massive protests to being occurring around the country opposing government policy.
The Tea Parties, despite what the media would have you believe, were non-partisan events. Many refused to allow politicians to speak, preferring ordinary people to deliver the messages. Politicians, like my Representative John Culberson, attended and came to listen, not speak, as he said to the organizers.
People of all political persuasions and non-political people attended Tea Parties. Many groups organizing to attend insisted that signs not reflect anti-Obama messages. I am a contributor on the website www.motherofallconservatives.com and there is a Wii giveaway for the most clever sign used at a Tea Party. The rules state that an entry cannot reflect anti-Obama sentiments or cheap shots. They may be clever but that was not the point of the rallies.
The rallies were not the brainchild of FOX. The rest of the msm decided to label it as another "right wing" activity. So be it. The people won. The movement began on the Internet. The traditional media is no longer a driving force when people are inspired.
Go to www.foundingbloggers.com and watch the crowd and "reporter" Susan Roesgen as they interacted after the CNN camera stopped filming.
Last night, as I watched local coverage on the late news here in Houston, I was pleasantly surprised. The channel I was watching, an affiliate of NBC, did an unbiased report. The reporter showed some clips from the gathering downtown and mentioned the numbers. She read a statement from the Harris County Democrat Party in rebuttal to the success of the event. Their statement included the Democrat talking points of the day. They included the riff that it was just more evil Republicans at work. The reporter, after reading the statement, said that in fact it wasn't just Republicans represented there yesterday. She spoke with many who identified themselves as Democrats.
Those who dismiss these protests as partisan or Republican events are missing the boat. It is about policy and taxation. It is about freedom. Fiscal conservatives are in both parties.
Hey, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs! Are you listening?
Now that the Tea Party is over, what is next? Here's a suggestion: go to www.aftertheteaparty.com and find out how to stay involved on the issues you are passionate about.
The media in this country showed their true colors again - much as we saw during the presidential campaign as they cheered openly for Barack Obama - and dismissed or tried to ignore the protests of ordinary Americans fed up with the continued growth of government that reaches into their lives every day, with no end in sight. Those on two losing cable networks decided it was amusing to turn the words tea bag into a sexual joke - just like the juvenile male view of candidate Obama and thrills running up their legs over him. Professionals all.
Susan Roesgen, of CNN, is coming under fire on the Internet at YouTube for her obnoxious "interview" with a protester in Chicago yesterday. She decided to berate and debate him, as he held his toddler daughter, instead of allowing him to answer her question. She was all about accusations and condescending statements. Then she cut away when those around him objected to her exercise in vanity. She tossed it back to the studio while remarking that the Tea Parties were promoted by "right wing, conservative FOX". Professional.
CNN is behind FOX, and even MSNBC now in ratings for cable networks. Gee, wonder why.
The common theme that comes from the White House related by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is that these protests don't amount to much. He claims the President isn't even aware of them. Really? If President Bush was said to not be aware of citizen's opinions, especially with the numbers of these protesters, he was accused of being out of touch. Double standard? Gibbs hopes the media will completely drop coverage, of course. This president is still in his honeymoon stage and it is unusual, to say the least, for such massive protests to being occurring around the country opposing government policy.
The Tea Parties, despite what the media would have you believe, were non-partisan events. Many refused to allow politicians to speak, preferring ordinary people to deliver the messages. Politicians, like my Representative John Culberson, attended and came to listen, not speak, as he said to the organizers.
People of all political persuasions and non-political people attended Tea Parties. Many groups organizing to attend insisted that signs not reflect anti-Obama messages. I am a contributor on the website www.motherofallconservatives.com and there is a Wii giveaway for the most clever sign used at a Tea Party. The rules state that an entry cannot reflect anti-Obama sentiments or cheap shots. They may be clever but that was not the point of the rallies.
The rallies were not the brainchild of FOX. The rest of the msm decided to label it as another "right wing" activity. So be it. The people won. The movement began on the Internet. The traditional media is no longer a driving force when people are inspired.
Go to www.foundingbloggers.com and watch the crowd and "reporter" Susan Roesgen as they interacted after the CNN camera stopped filming.
Last night, as I watched local coverage on the late news here in Houston, I was pleasantly surprised. The channel I was watching, an affiliate of NBC, did an unbiased report. The reporter showed some clips from the gathering downtown and mentioned the numbers. She read a statement from the Harris County Democrat Party in rebuttal to the success of the event. Their statement included the Democrat talking points of the day. They included the riff that it was just more evil Republicans at work. The reporter, after reading the statement, said that in fact it wasn't just Republicans represented there yesterday. She spoke with many who identified themselves as Democrats.
Those who dismiss these protests as partisan or Republican events are missing the boat. It is about policy and taxation. It is about freedom. Fiscal conservatives are in both parties.
Hey, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs! Are you listening?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The American Legion Responds to DHS
Are you attending a Tea Party in your town today? Do you attend any rallies expressing your opinion on public policy or federal laws? Are you a returning veteran from the Iraq or Afghanistan wars? Congratulations. You are now considered to be a rightwing extremist by the Department of Homeland Security.
A report was published and distributed by the Department of Homeland Security to "federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials". The report is labeled as an assessment and the date on it is April 7, 2009. The title? "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." Nice.
The faceless bureaucrats behind this piece of work are referred to as "the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division", in coordination with the FBI.
"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence." According to an article at World Net Daily, though there is no specific information to cause heightened alarm, the office blames the state of our country's economy and the election of the first black American President as the sources of aggravation that may push "right wing extremists" over the edge.
The assessment admits that membership in known extreme groups has declined and that there has been no increase in violence. Yet, the agency insists it will be working with state and local "partners" to track regional increases.
Most heinous is the part of the report that claims veterans are an increased law enforcement risk. The agency claims the extremists are recruiting and radicalizing returning veterans. The FBI reports only a minuscule number of incidents of violence involving returning veterans yet the flag is raised and the group is targeted by the agency.
A response from the American Legion came in letter form to Secretary Janet Napolitano:
Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
April 13, 2009
Dear Secretary Napolitano,
On behalf of the 2.6 million-member American Legion, I am stating my concern about your April 7 report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence and Recruitment.”
First, I want to assure you that The American Legion has long shared your concern about white supremacist and anti-government groups. In 1923, when the Ku Klux Klan still yielded unspeakable influence in this country, The American Legion passed Resolution 407. It resolved, in part, “…we consider any individual, group of individuals or organizations, which creates, or fosters racial, religious or class strife among our people, or which takes into their own hands the enforcement of law, determination of guilt, or infliction of punishment, to be un-American, a menace to our liberties, and destructive to our fundamental law…”
The best that I can say about your recent report is that it is incomplete. The report states, without any statistical evidence, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical “disgruntled military veteran” is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.
Your report states that “Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.” Secretary Napolitano, this is more than a perception to those who have lost their job. Would you categorize union members as “Right Wing extremists”?
In spite of this incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased report, The American Legion and the Department of Homeland Security share many common and crucial interests, such as the Citizen Corps and disaster preparedness. Since you are a graduate of New Mexico Girls State, I trust that you are very familiar with The American Legion. I would be happy to meet with you at a time of mutual convenience to discuss issues such as border security and the war on terrorism. I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are.
Sincerely,
David K. Rehbein
National Commander
The American Legion
If President Obama was sincere in his claims of bringing more open government and preserving freedom of speech to American citizens, he would demand the firing of the employees responsible for this report. Harassing citizens for holding political views is not true to our basic freedoms.
Remember when the anti-war protesters were screaming about dissent being patriotic? The anti-war protests were attended by people of all walks of life and political persuasions. The same is true of other protests, whether they are the Tea Party protests, illegal immigration protests, or pro-life and pro-choice rallies. It is hard to imagine all of these participants being labeled as "right wing extremists". These are all basic human rights. Aren't both those on the left and right concerned about human rights? Does that make a person an extremist?
The Department of Homeland Security was not needed when it was created. It has proven to be exactly what critics of the department's creation predicted - another giant, out of control government agency. It is a disgrace.
A report was published and distributed by the Department of Homeland Security to "federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials". The report is labeled as an assessment and the date on it is April 7, 2009. The title? "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." Nice.
The faceless bureaucrats behind this piece of work are referred to as "the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division", in coordination with the FBI.
"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence." According to an article at World Net Daily, though there is no specific information to cause heightened alarm, the office blames the state of our country's economy and the election of the first black American President as the sources of aggravation that may push "right wing extremists" over the edge.
The assessment admits that membership in known extreme groups has declined and that there has been no increase in violence. Yet, the agency insists it will be working with state and local "partners" to track regional increases.
Most heinous is the part of the report that claims veterans are an increased law enforcement risk. The agency claims the extremists are recruiting and radicalizing returning veterans. The FBI reports only a minuscule number of incidents of violence involving returning veterans yet the flag is raised and the group is targeted by the agency.
A response from the American Legion came in letter form to Secretary Janet Napolitano:
Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
April 13, 2009
Dear Secretary Napolitano,
On behalf of the 2.6 million-member American Legion, I am stating my concern about your April 7 report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence and Recruitment.”
First, I want to assure you that The American Legion has long shared your concern about white supremacist and anti-government groups. In 1923, when the Ku Klux Klan still yielded unspeakable influence in this country, The American Legion passed Resolution 407. It resolved, in part, “…we consider any individual, group of individuals or organizations, which creates, or fosters racial, religious or class strife among our people, or which takes into their own hands the enforcement of law, determination of guilt, or infliction of punishment, to be un-American, a menace to our liberties, and destructive to our fundamental law…”
The best that I can say about your recent report is that it is incomplete. The report states, without any statistical evidence, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical “disgruntled military veteran” is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.
Your report states that “Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.” Secretary Napolitano, this is more than a perception to those who have lost their job. Would you categorize union members as “Right Wing extremists”?
In spite of this incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased report, The American Legion and the Department of Homeland Security share many common and crucial interests, such as the Citizen Corps and disaster preparedness. Since you are a graduate of New Mexico Girls State, I trust that you are very familiar with The American Legion. I would be happy to meet with you at a time of mutual convenience to discuss issues such as border security and the war on terrorism. I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are.
Sincerely,
David K. Rehbein
National Commander
The American Legion
If President Obama was sincere in his claims of bringing more open government and preserving freedom of speech to American citizens, he would demand the firing of the employees responsible for this report. Harassing citizens for holding political views is not true to our basic freedoms.
Remember when the anti-war protesters were screaming about dissent being patriotic? The anti-war protests were attended by people of all walks of life and political persuasions. The same is true of other protests, whether they are the Tea Party protests, illegal immigration protests, or pro-life and pro-choice rallies. It is hard to imagine all of these participants being labeled as "right wing extremists". These are all basic human rights. Aren't both those on the left and right concerned about human rights? Does that make a person an extremist?
The Department of Homeland Security was not needed when it was created. It has proven to be exactly what critics of the department's creation predicted - another giant, out of control government agency. It is a disgrace.
West Africa Has Hostage Issues, Too
The Phillips family in Burlington, Vermont experienced a particularly sweet Easter Sunday with the good news of the rescue of Captain Phillips. Thanks to our U.S. Navy and the excellent marksmanship skills of its snipers, three Somali pirates are dead and one is in U.S. custody. The U.S. Captain is free from his hostage nightmare and safe, arranging his trip home.
There is much back and forth over the wisdom of armed or unarmed transport of goods through dangerous seas. Transportation companies contracted to deliver humanitarian aid and also regular commerce face the dilemma of paying exorbitant insurance rates and assuming liability for loss of cargo and life or simply training crews to battle pirates using methods without traditional weapons.
Let me give you another perspective on African piracy- the prespective of a wife married to an engineer on oil drilling rigs in international waters, as well as domestic. My husband has 30 years experience traveling the world and has three separate experiences with hostage situations in West Africa. Yes, West Africa deals with piracy of a bit differently.
During the 1990's, hostage taking in West Africa revolved mostly around the Nigerian crew taking control of offshore oil drilling rigs and demanding ransom in the form of higher severence pay as the drilling rig was out of the hole - meaning drilling was completed. My husband's experiences all take place in Nigeria.
The first incident occured much like the second incident. Both were while he was working on a drilling rig for American drilling companies. The oil rigs were American owned and the crews were mostly American, with the addition of the Nigerian workers. The procedure used by the pirates was to overtake the oil rig as the relief crew came onboard. The pirates were the actual Nigerian workers coming to work.
With a double crew of Nigerians to boost their numbers against the American crew, they would shut the oil rig down and demand higher severence pay with the threat of death to the Americans.
The first incident lasted 10 days for my husband and his crew. It was resolved by the American drilling company paying off the Nigerian workers. The second incident, this one about a year later, was resolved the same way.
Only one woman was onboard with the Americans on the first drilling rig and she was a technician doing some testing for a service company - Schlumberger. She was strong up until about the 6th day and then had a meltdown, which, who would fault her for that? Food was running low and there was no end in sight as far as the hostages knew. During the second incident, no women were onboard.
The third incident was different. About five years after the last hostage situation, my husband was able to put his experiences from the previous two into an offensive rather than defensive response. Again, keep in mind this is an American drilling rig and an American drilling company involved. Unarmed. Once onboard, anonymous notes written to drilling management were found for several days. The demands were for an increase in severance pay for the Nigerians at the end of the job, about $15,000 additional for each Nigerian crew member plus a 27" color television for each Nigerian crew member. My husband sat with the decision maker of the drilling company and explained the actions that he knew would be coming as the crew attempted to take over the drilling rig. He explained that first, as the relief crew came onboard it would coordinate with the crew leaving to outnumber the others, that they would be out of the hole and the well would be safe. Then they would make their demands and hold the oil rig by threatening death to the Americans until their ransom was paid.
This time, by going on the offense and being prepared for the take over of the drilling rig, it was avoided. Upon completion of the drilling, the rig manager took the helicopter to the oil rig that should have had the relief crew of Nigerian workers to the oil rig offshore. The rig manager is based onshore. The crew to be replaced remained on the drilling rig. The Nigerians were on the pipe deck of the drilling rig waiting to go up to the heliport, bags packed. The bags contained clubs they had smuggled onboard. The Americans lined up between the pipe deck and the helideck. They prevented the Nigerian workers from rushing the helicopter when they realized their relief crew was not onboard for reinforcement. Many service workers were unaware of what was going on. My husband and the EMT were off to the side observing the actions. The line of beefy, no nonsense Americans was impressive. The rig manager told the Nigerians that the relief crew wasn't coming out to the rig, that they were to get on the helicopter and go back in. When they got to shore he would talk to them about a higher severence pay. After much squabbling, the Nigerians relented and went back to the base onshore.
Now, fast forward to today. Last week my husband returned from Nigeria. Eight years have passed since his last trip there. This time he was based onshore as a member of management of a crew of Nigerian workers. He was there for two months. A major difference is that now the American companies drilling offshore are arming their oil rigs by using Nigerian Navy and military personnel. The Nigerian contracters are hiring the local people through relatively unarmed private Nigerian security companies.
Neither is a perfect solution in a dangerous imperfect world.
You will find much information at: http://www.oyibosonline.com/ concerning the atmosphere in Nigeria. You may be surprised to know there are hundreds of ex-pat hostages awaiting their release in Nigeria, onshore, as I write this. The hostage taking has moved onshore and regularly occurs as a means of conflict resolution between company management and workers.
Hostage taking and piracy solutions on a failed continent will not easily be resolved.
cross posted at http://www.motherofallconservatives.com/
There is much back and forth over the wisdom of armed or unarmed transport of goods through dangerous seas. Transportation companies contracted to deliver humanitarian aid and also regular commerce face the dilemma of paying exorbitant insurance rates and assuming liability for loss of cargo and life or simply training crews to battle pirates using methods without traditional weapons.
Let me give you another perspective on African piracy- the prespective of a wife married to an engineer on oil drilling rigs in international waters, as well as domestic. My husband has 30 years experience traveling the world and has three separate experiences with hostage situations in West Africa. Yes, West Africa deals with piracy of a bit differently.
During the 1990's, hostage taking in West Africa revolved mostly around the Nigerian crew taking control of offshore oil drilling rigs and demanding ransom in the form of higher severence pay as the drilling rig was out of the hole - meaning drilling was completed. My husband's experiences all take place in Nigeria.
The first incident occured much like the second incident. Both were while he was working on a drilling rig for American drilling companies. The oil rigs were American owned and the crews were mostly American, with the addition of the Nigerian workers. The procedure used by the pirates was to overtake the oil rig as the relief crew came onboard. The pirates were the actual Nigerian workers coming to work.
With a double crew of Nigerians to boost their numbers against the American crew, they would shut the oil rig down and demand higher severence pay with the threat of death to the Americans.
The first incident lasted 10 days for my husband and his crew. It was resolved by the American drilling company paying off the Nigerian workers. The second incident, this one about a year later, was resolved the same way.
Only one woman was onboard with the Americans on the first drilling rig and she was a technician doing some testing for a service company - Schlumberger. She was strong up until about the 6th day and then had a meltdown, which, who would fault her for that? Food was running low and there was no end in sight as far as the hostages knew. During the second incident, no women were onboard.
The third incident was different. About five years after the last hostage situation, my husband was able to put his experiences from the previous two into an offensive rather than defensive response. Again, keep in mind this is an American drilling rig and an American drilling company involved. Unarmed. Once onboard, anonymous notes written to drilling management were found for several days. The demands were for an increase in severance pay for the Nigerians at the end of the job, about $15,000 additional for each Nigerian crew member plus a 27" color television for each Nigerian crew member. My husband sat with the decision maker of the drilling company and explained the actions that he knew would be coming as the crew attempted to take over the drilling rig. He explained that first, as the relief crew came onboard it would coordinate with the crew leaving to outnumber the others, that they would be out of the hole and the well would be safe. Then they would make their demands and hold the oil rig by threatening death to the Americans until their ransom was paid.
This time, by going on the offense and being prepared for the take over of the drilling rig, it was avoided. Upon completion of the drilling, the rig manager took the helicopter to the oil rig that should have had the relief crew of Nigerian workers to the oil rig offshore. The rig manager is based onshore. The crew to be replaced remained on the drilling rig. The Nigerians were on the pipe deck of the drilling rig waiting to go up to the heliport, bags packed. The bags contained clubs they had smuggled onboard. The Americans lined up between the pipe deck and the helideck. They prevented the Nigerian workers from rushing the helicopter when they realized their relief crew was not onboard for reinforcement. Many service workers were unaware of what was going on. My husband and the EMT were off to the side observing the actions. The line of beefy, no nonsense Americans was impressive. The rig manager told the Nigerians that the relief crew wasn't coming out to the rig, that they were to get on the helicopter and go back in. When they got to shore he would talk to them about a higher severence pay. After much squabbling, the Nigerians relented and went back to the base onshore.
Now, fast forward to today. Last week my husband returned from Nigeria. Eight years have passed since his last trip there. This time he was based onshore as a member of management of a crew of Nigerian workers. He was there for two months. A major difference is that now the American companies drilling offshore are arming their oil rigs by using Nigerian Navy and military personnel. The Nigerian contracters are hiring the local people through relatively unarmed private Nigerian security companies.
Neither is a perfect solution in a dangerous imperfect world.
You will find much information at: http://www.oyibosonline.com/ concerning the atmosphere in Nigeria. You may be surprised to know there are hundreds of ex-pat hostages awaiting their release in Nigeria, onshore, as I write this. The hostage taking has moved onshore and regularly occurs as a means of conflict resolution between company management and workers.
Hostage taking and piracy solutions on a failed continent will not easily be resolved.
cross posted at http://www.motherofallconservatives.com/
Monday, April 13, 2009
Joe Biden's Blarney
Former G.W. Bush administration staffers are pushing back on some of V.P. Joe Biden's latest whoppers. My question is, where were these people when President Bush most needed them? Each and every time a falsehood or a story made up completely was allowed to circulate and gel within the media, the communications team from the former president's White House response was benign. Control of the message was lost at an early date and they never really caught up. So much history has been re-written in such a brief period of time. We will know soon enough how successful the new administration will be.
"State Secrets Privilege" is a nifty term. President Obama has now decided to keep and perhaps expand Bush policy on wiretapping and gathering information as it pertains to national security. You may remember that candidate Barack Obama was a very vocal critic of President Bush's security measures, though they kept our country safe from further attacks since the time of 9/11/01. After securing the defeatist element of the far left, he veered a bit more to the center as the election grew closer so as to appeal to more learned voters.
Now the far left is aghast, aghast I say, that the Chosen One has proven again to be just another politician. Once in office and fully briefed as to the facts of a dangerous world, Obama realized the war on terror is real and not just a conservative President's fantasy.
Seems, though, that V.P. Biden hasn't fully understood the acknowledgement of the nod towards former President Bush. Recently he has taken to telling an old anecdote he first rolled out in 2004. Serial plagiarist Biden enjoys elevating his own personal reputation by telling a story that has him spending time alone with former President Bush and dressing him down for failing to lead in a way that would entice others to follow. It's a plain and simple lie but makes for a good story for old Joe. "That's just Joe" was the consistent response during campaign days when he was caught uttering nonsense or offensive remarks. Lots of opportunities for that response to be used, too.
Jay Carney, Press Secretary for Biden says the V.P. stands by his story. Carney, former Time Magazine guy, will not provide reporters with any proof of this meeting. Bush aides have called it as it is - a complete fabrication to puff Biden up. Karl Rove, Andy Card, and Ari Fleischer all have gone on record to say this dialogue never happened.
With Biden's proven history of plagiarism, it is hard to take his stories as anything more than efforts to prop himself up. He is a legend in his own mind. As Vice President he must feel the need to prove himself relevant.
Biden must also be under the delusion that he is Commander-in-Chief. Last week he felt entitled to instruct the newly installed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to attack Iran. As the Obama administration pursues talking to the Iranian leadership, Israel has shown renewed impatience with the terrorist threat. Indicative of continuing on the path of trying to reason with the unreasonable, Richard Holbrooke, envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan and Dennis Ross, senior advisor for Southwest Asia have both hired Iranian experts.
Perhaps V.P. Biden will find himself sharing the stage more and more with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the blarney count. First Schumer caught flak for stating as fact on the Senate floor that ordinary Americans don't care about 'all those porky parts' in the budget. Continuing on in Chuckie world, over last weekend on a talk show, Schumer declared the Reagan policies of traditional values and strong foreign policy over.
Good to hear a liberal declare his desire to end strong national security measures. How could that possibly be important in the present state of the world around us? And, conservatives already know that liberals are far too intellectual of beings to care much for traditional family values.
Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. Quite a pair of thinkers there.
"State Secrets Privilege" is a nifty term. President Obama has now decided to keep and perhaps expand Bush policy on wiretapping and gathering information as it pertains to national security. You may remember that candidate Barack Obama was a very vocal critic of President Bush's security measures, though they kept our country safe from further attacks since the time of 9/11/01. After securing the defeatist element of the far left, he veered a bit more to the center as the election grew closer so as to appeal to more learned voters.
Now the far left is aghast, aghast I say, that the Chosen One has proven again to be just another politician. Once in office and fully briefed as to the facts of a dangerous world, Obama realized the war on terror is real and not just a conservative President's fantasy.
Seems, though, that V.P. Biden hasn't fully understood the acknowledgement of the nod towards former President Bush. Recently he has taken to telling an old anecdote he first rolled out in 2004. Serial plagiarist Biden enjoys elevating his own personal reputation by telling a story that has him spending time alone with former President Bush and dressing him down for failing to lead in a way that would entice others to follow. It's a plain and simple lie but makes for a good story for old Joe. "That's just Joe" was the consistent response during campaign days when he was caught uttering nonsense or offensive remarks. Lots of opportunities for that response to be used, too.
Jay Carney, Press Secretary for Biden says the V.P. stands by his story. Carney, former Time Magazine guy, will not provide reporters with any proof of this meeting. Bush aides have called it as it is - a complete fabrication to puff Biden up. Karl Rove, Andy Card, and Ari Fleischer all have gone on record to say this dialogue never happened.
With Biden's proven history of plagiarism, it is hard to take his stories as anything more than efforts to prop himself up. He is a legend in his own mind. As Vice President he must feel the need to prove himself relevant.
Biden must also be under the delusion that he is Commander-in-Chief. Last week he felt entitled to instruct the newly installed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to attack Iran. As the Obama administration pursues talking to the Iranian leadership, Israel has shown renewed impatience with the terrorist threat. Indicative of continuing on the path of trying to reason with the unreasonable, Richard Holbrooke, envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan and Dennis Ross, senior advisor for Southwest Asia have both hired Iranian experts.
Perhaps V.P. Biden will find himself sharing the stage more and more with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the blarney count. First Schumer caught flak for stating as fact on the Senate floor that ordinary Americans don't care about 'all those porky parts' in the budget. Continuing on in Chuckie world, over last weekend on a talk show, Schumer declared the Reagan policies of traditional values and strong foreign policy over.
Good to hear a liberal declare his desire to end strong national security measures. How could that possibly be important in the present state of the world around us? And, conservatives already know that liberals are far too intellectual of beings to care much for traditional family values.
Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. Quite a pair of thinkers there.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Obama Exaggerations Turn to Lies
When the President of the United States makes speeches, even speeches overseas, and he exaggerates to make his point, where does the exaggeration end and the lie begin? Unfortunately, within our own country, the fawning press usually is too much in agreement with President Obama's oral embellishments to bother to make the distinction.
For example, as he played celebrity president during his first trip to Europe and Turkey as President, when some of his enthusiastic fans described him as a rock star and the most popular of the leaders at the G20, Obama deferred to the president of Brazil. He uncharacteristically humbled himself and stated that, in fact, the Brazilian president is the biggest star on the world stage. This was a curious gesture, too, given the fact that President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is on the downward slide in his approval ratings. In his own country, industrial production is down, unemployment is up and recent polls show a distinct drop in approval.
Plus, President da Silva (known as Lula) openly blamed the world's economic crisis on "white people with blue eyes". Quite a racist comment yet was there any criticism from the Obama administration? No. Obama bestows top celebrity status upon him while both were at the G20.
President Obama, while speaking to Turkish students, falsely stated that President Bush did not believe in the validity of climate change. This lie was uttered to prop up his own theories on the issue. In fact, as early as 2001, Bush produced guidelines for greenhouse gas reduction and put forth measures in his very first State of the Union address to combat growing concerns. Every year after that, the issue was addressed. President Obama didn't just exaggerate to make his own point, he lied.
President Obama called the Iraq war a "distraction" while abroad. With 130, 000 troops still on the ground and a history of denying the success of the mission, he made a quick stop there on his way back to Washington. He previously said the surge would not succeed and he, along with now Secretary of State Clinton, said General Petraeus was not capable of making the surge a success. While in Iraq, Obama was very careful not to say the war has been won, the victory due to the very military he diminishes at every turn.
Not only did President Bush and General Petraeus, along with our magnificent military, bring a growing democracy into the Middle East, all signs point to continued progress. What did Obama receive in return for his backhand praise to our troops? When he was trying to get agreements from other countries to take prisoners that will be released from Gitmo, only France came forward and then they only agreed to take one prisoner. One.
John Dickerson, in Slate, is one who is beginning to put the exaggerations together. Obama stated to the Turkish students, "Some of my reporter friends from the States were asking, 'How come you didn't solve everything on this trip?" According to Dickerson, that was never asked of him by anyone. It was a lie. This was to deflect those who realize Obama failed to produce anything but making a good appearance on this trip overseas.
On the video sent to Iran, Obama said in his last press conference last month, according to Dickerson, "We did a video, sending a message to the Iranian people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And some people said, 'Well, they did not immediately say that we're eliminating nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism.' " Dickerson points out no one said that. It was a lie to encourage patience with his foreign policy tactics.
Dickerson notes "It is in domestic political battles with Republicans, however, that the president's exaggerations may be sharpest. They are intended to make his opponents look foolish. "Some of what's been said in Congress is that there seems to be a set of folks who just believe that we should do nothing," he said of Republicans during the debate over the stimulus bill. Almost no one was suggesting that nothing be done. Writing in the Washington Post, he offered another cartoonish view, saying that his opponents believe "that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive."
What we come away with, from the Obama trek to the G20, NATO Summit, and Turkey before the stop in Iraq, is that President Obama does not intend to get beyond candidate Obama mode. He intends to continue on and hopes to win re-election for a second term. This is the result of his inexperience as a leader and certainly as an executive. He promised to be the post partisan president. He promised to be the post racial president. Both claims were exaggerations. Now they are just lies.
For example, as he played celebrity president during his first trip to Europe and Turkey as President, when some of his enthusiastic fans described him as a rock star and the most popular of the leaders at the G20, Obama deferred to the president of Brazil. He uncharacteristically humbled himself and stated that, in fact, the Brazilian president is the biggest star on the world stage. This was a curious gesture, too, given the fact that President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is on the downward slide in his approval ratings. In his own country, industrial production is down, unemployment is up and recent polls show a distinct drop in approval.
Plus, President da Silva (known as Lula) openly blamed the world's economic crisis on "white people with blue eyes". Quite a racist comment yet was there any criticism from the Obama administration? No. Obama bestows top celebrity status upon him while both were at the G20.
President Obama, while speaking to Turkish students, falsely stated that President Bush did not believe in the validity of climate change. This lie was uttered to prop up his own theories on the issue. In fact, as early as 2001, Bush produced guidelines for greenhouse gas reduction and put forth measures in his very first State of the Union address to combat growing concerns. Every year after that, the issue was addressed. President Obama didn't just exaggerate to make his own point, he lied.
President Obama called the Iraq war a "distraction" while abroad. With 130, 000 troops still on the ground and a history of denying the success of the mission, he made a quick stop there on his way back to Washington. He previously said the surge would not succeed and he, along with now Secretary of State Clinton, said General Petraeus was not capable of making the surge a success. While in Iraq, Obama was very careful not to say the war has been won, the victory due to the very military he diminishes at every turn.
Not only did President Bush and General Petraeus, along with our magnificent military, bring a growing democracy into the Middle East, all signs point to continued progress. What did Obama receive in return for his backhand praise to our troops? When he was trying to get agreements from other countries to take prisoners that will be released from Gitmo, only France came forward and then they only agreed to take one prisoner. One.
John Dickerson, in Slate, is one who is beginning to put the exaggerations together. Obama stated to the Turkish students, "Some of my reporter friends from the States were asking, 'How come you didn't solve everything on this trip?" According to Dickerson, that was never asked of him by anyone. It was a lie. This was to deflect those who realize Obama failed to produce anything but making a good appearance on this trip overseas.
On the video sent to Iran, Obama said in his last press conference last month, according to Dickerson, "We did a video, sending a message to the Iranian people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And some people said, 'Well, they did not immediately say that we're eliminating nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism.' " Dickerson points out no one said that. It was a lie to encourage patience with his foreign policy tactics.
Dickerson notes "It is in domestic political battles with Republicans, however, that the president's exaggerations may be sharpest. They are intended to make his opponents look foolish. "Some of what's been said in Congress is that there seems to be a set of folks who just believe that we should do nothing," he said of Republicans during the debate over the stimulus bill. Almost no one was suggesting that nothing be done. Writing in the Washington Post, he offered another cartoonish view, saying that his opponents believe "that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive."
What we come away with, from the Obama trek to the G20, NATO Summit, and Turkey before the stop in Iraq, is that President Obama does not intend to get beyond candidate Obama mode. He intends to continue on and hopes to win re-election for a second term. This is the result of his inexperience as a leader and certainly as an executive. He promised to be the post partisan president. He promised to be the post racial president. Both claims were exaggerations. Now they are just lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)