Saturday, January 31, 2009

Obama Attacks Limbaugh


On Friday, Obama reportedly told House Republicans as he lobbied for his stimulus plan, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Then the Democrats jumped in with a series of paid commercials attacking Limbaugh.

At one time, I lived under a dictator. One of his major strategies was to silence his opposition by shutting down the newspapers that challenged him. It was a very nervous time. One day after returning to the states, our local newspaper interviewed me regarding my experiences. As silly as this may sound to some of you, for weeks after that, my whole family went around our little town looking over our shoulders. We actually wondered if the dictator would be able to reach us.

Although the origins of this quote is unclear, the best one comes from Pastor Martin Niemoller who said: "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

I am just not comfortable with a President using his position as the most powerful person in the world plus his present popularity, to try to silence an early detractor. So, at what point do we bloggers become nervous and begin to shut down?

How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Specia

Thanks to a reader for this post and the next one. This one ends with a warning that was not heeded.

Nancy Pelosi's First 100 Days

Thursday, January 29, 2009

NC BIPARTISANSHIP


PRESS RELEASE
Senate Republican Leader
Senator Phil Berger
26th Senatorial District

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 28, 2009

NOW IS THE TIME FOR BIPARTISANSHIP

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) made the following statement:

“Now is the time for a bipartisan effort to remake North Carolina’s government from the ground up.

Democrat Senator Marc Basnight’s speech, accepting his nomination to an eighth term as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, shows he is aware of the litany of problems facing North Carolina’s citizens.

“The Democrats did not support any of the Senate Republican’s good government proposals to reform and open the operation of the Senate. Unfortunately, this failure indicates a continuation of past practices in which Democrat leaders dictate the operations of an extremely partisan Senate from behind closed doors. Senate Democrats still refuse to accept the lessons to be learned from the embarrassing tenure of Democrat Speaker of the House Jim Black; those lessons include a need for open debate and transparency in management of the state’s business.

“Senate Republicans are encouraged by the efforts of Governor Perdue and Lieutenant Governor Dalton to reach across the aisle. Senate Republicans will reach out to Governor Perdue and Lieutenant Governor Dalton to seek new, innovative, and bipartisan solutions to the problems facing our state. It is our hope that the Senate Democrats will heed Barack Obama’s call in his inaugural address to end, ‘…the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.’”

Foxx Joins the No Pork Pledge.


VIRGINIA FOXX JOINS NO PORK PLEDGERS

NAILED!


Keep in mind that this was a quote from the 1940's.
America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

--- Joseph Stalin

Scary Statistics


I attended a meeting yesterday that had a couple of very scary statistics:

By the end of 2009, if the stimulus package takes the form that Obama is talking about currently, the US Gov't could control 50% of the country's GDP.

Historically, 17% of eligible voters paid NO federal income tax

By the end of 2009, again same caveate as above, 44% of eligible voters will pay NO federal income tax.

The government will be the only business (quasi) that will be growing significantly in 2009.

Foxx statement on $825 billion “borrow and spend” plan


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Aaron Groen

January 28, 2009

Washington, DC—Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (NC-05) released the following statement today on the so-called “stimulus plan” being considered by the House of Representatives:

“The economic challenges facing our country today are great. Americans expect Congress to take seriously the need to get the unemployed back to work and to help small businesses, the engine of our economy, create most of those jobs. Doing the right thing means we must cut taxes for small businesses and all American families rather than spending billions on pet projects that do nothing to stimulate the economy.

“This $825 billion borrow and spend plan that shells out $7.7 billion for programs that already have a budget surplus, that spends more than $330 million for sexually transmitted disease programs and that fritters away another $400 million for NASA global warming research does not measure up.

“We are being told that action is urgent but only 15 percent of the spending in this bill will get into the economy in 2009 and only 35 percent in 2010. That’s why today I will vote for an alternative plan that focuses on tax relief which leaves more money in the hands of working families instead of giving more money to government which is little more than pork barrel spending.

“Borrowing and spending the equivalent of $10,500 for every household in America will do little to nothing to create new jobs and will put us further down the road to a national debt catastrophe. I urge my Democrat colleagues to consider the proposals put forth by Republicans to bring fast, efficient economic relief through targeted tax cuts for families and employers.”

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Fascism On the Left

FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE TOLERANCE FASCISTS
(Liberal readers, before you even ask me if I agree with this writer, the answer is, yes. Blogger)

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Foxx statement on today’s meeting with President Obama




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 27, 2009

Washington, DC—President Barack Obama today met with Republican’s in the House of Representatives, including Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (NC-05), to discuss the need for an economic relief package. Rep. Foxx issued the following statement after the meeting with President Obama:

“Today’s meeting with President Obama was an encouraging sign that our new President is willing to listen to the ideas and concerns of House Republicans.

“My sincere hope is that the President will seriously consider the proposals presented by Republicans to cut taxes for families and small businesses across America. His openness to dialogue is an important first step to fixing the serious flaws in the House Democrats’ $825 billion spending bill.

“As this process moves forward perhaps my Democratic colleagues in the House will follow the example of President Obama and include House Republicans in the economic relief negotiations that we have thus far been locked out of.”

Obama Snubs Nation's Heroes, Becomes the First President to Skip Ball Honoring Medal of Honor Recipients in Over 50 Years


Barack Obama may have stumbled over his words briefly during his inauguration, but he made an even bigger blunder later Tuesday evening. The newly sworn-in President opted not to appear at what should have been one of the most important Balls on his agenda that evening - The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.

The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball was begun in 1953 for President Dwight Eisenhower's inauguration. The event recognized recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military award. There were 48 Medal of Honor recipients in attendance, who were undoubtedly disappointed by the Commander-in-Chief's failure to show. Over the past 56 years and 14 inaugurations, no President has skipped this event - until now.

The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball is sponsored by the American Legion, and co-sponsored by 13 other veteran's service organizations, including those such as the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Instead of attending this ball honoring our nation's heroes, Obama was busy making stops at 10 other official balls. Obama and his wife's first stop was at the Neighborhood Ball. From there they went to the Home State Ball for Illinois and Hawaii, the Commander-in-Chief Ball, the Youth Inaugural Ball, and the Home State Ball for Delaware and Pennsylvania. They finished off the night with brief appearances at the Mid-Atlantic, Western, Midwest, Eastern, and Southern regional Balls.

Celebrities were a plenty at the balls, with Stevie Wonder, Shakira, Mary. J. Blige, Faith Hill, Jay-Z, Alicia Keys, Adam Levine, will.i.am, Sting, Mariah Carey, and Leonardo DiCaprio in attendance at the Neighborhood Ball. In addition, the other nine balls also featured a star-studded lineup including Kanye West and Kid Rock at the Youth Ball, Marc Anthony at the Western Ball, and Cheryl Crow at the Western Ball.

It was the party without all of the celebrities that Obama skipped. The very people who he sought to have support him during his candidacy and campaign, who have fought to protect this country, were snubbed in favor of publicity and the opportunity to rub shoulders - yet again - with the out-of-touch Hollywood elite.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Rush, On Target, Fires Back


RUSH RETURNS FIRE

2nd Ammendment Gathering

2n Ammendment Gathering

I Won Says Obama So Go Away Rush

Obama: Stop Listening to Rush Limbaugh Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:57 PM Newsmax

President Barack Obama advised Republican leaders Friday that they shouldn’t be listening to Rush Limbaugh if they plan on getting along with him.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told the GOP leaders, according to a report in the New York Post, in the midst of discussions on his planned $1 trillion stimulus package.

A White House official later told the Post that Obama was only trying to make a larger point about bipartisan relationships. He also was making it clear that his party controls both the House and the Senate and has the votes to push through his favored versions of legislation.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said, referring to the Limbaugh comment. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

The comments came during the same meeting in which Obama told Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., that his plan would be getting pushed through because "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.

"I will trump you on that," he added as Cantor was discussing his problems with the stimulus legislation.

"We just have a difference here, and I'm president," Obama continued, according to another account by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel said Obama was being lighthearted and that lawmakers from both parties laughed. Cantor later agreed that the comment was made with no ill intent.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Highlights of the Stimulus Package


This is the way the stimulus package is suppose to look. But just watch what the Democrats and (some Republicans) tack on in pork to maintain themselves in office.


Highlights of Economic Recovery Plan
Spending
Energy
$32 billion Funding for "smart electricity grid" to reduce waste
$20 billion + Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit
$6 billion Funding to weatherize modest-income homes


Science and Technology
$10 billion Science facilities
$6 billion High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas


Infrastructure
$32 billion Transportation projects
$31 billion Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure
$19 billion Water projects
$10 billion Rail and mass transit projects


Education
$41 billion Grants to local school districts
$79 billion State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid
$21 billion School modernization


Health Care
$39 billion Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid
$90 billion Help to states with Medicaid
$20 billion Modernization of health-information technology systems
$4 billion Preventative care


Taxes

Individuals:

* $500 per worker, $1,000 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion
* Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor
* Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children
* A $2,500 college tuition tax credit
* Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time

Businesses:

* An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two
* Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment
* Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases
* Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans

Friday, January 23, 2009

Inauguration costs and Media Bias

Sent in by a close family member:

MAJOR Leading Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"

"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"

"Fat cats get their $42 million Inauguration Party - Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Major Leading Headlines Today:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"

"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"

" 'Everyman Obama' shows America how to celebrate"

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

"Change" has come?

Roe vs Wade. Liberals Need Not Apply

On this post, I would like to hear from only conservatives. One issue that will have to be debated in our party before next election came up at our monthly Republican meeting.

Now that Roe vs. Wade has almost no possibility of being overturned, making opposition a futile act, and a turn off to Independents (who won this last election), what strategy do social conservatives take who feel passionately about this issue?

Do any of you conservatives out there have ideas? Can any of you send us links to thoughtful articles on this subject?

Please respond (Again, Liberals not invited on this one).

Winning Back College Campuses

Watauga Republicans Please Read

Keep in mind that it was the 2000 ASU students calling themselves Independents, that caused Watauga County to be the only county in North Western North Carolina to not go for McCain. The rest of the people up here gave McCain the victory by 27 points.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Virginia Foxx on stopping the second half of the megabank bailout

Here is the YouTube

Juan Williams on Obama

Rush, Gregg and I Thought This Exceptional

History Will Remember Bush Well

A member of the local Republicans asked us to post this:
History Will Remember Bush Well

Foxx's Win in Winston Salem Journal

(The minute this passed I contacted the Watauga Democrat, but they claimed they had already gone to press. On the other hand, the Winston Salem Journal thought this was an important story.

Foxx's bill passes in House

By Sean Mussenden | Media General News Service (Carried in Winston Salem Journal.)

Published: January 22, 2009

WASHINGTON

The House voted today to block President Barack Obama from releasing the second half of the $700 billion bailout of financial institutions.

The overwhelming approval of the bill – sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C. – was essentially a protest vote.

Because the Senate killed an identical bill last week, Foxx's bill is unlikely to stop Obama from making available to ailing banks and foreclosed homeowners the $350 billion left under the Troubled Assets Relief Program.

The Taxpayer's Hero Virginia Foxx

I wish everyone could have watched our Virginia Foxx today on C-Span. The House of Representatives were debating her bill to block TARP funds until there was real transparency.
Watching was so exciting as she stood her ground of one of the most powerful people in the House, Barney Frank.

Frank expected to intimidate Virginia Foxx by saying that his bill passed yesterday to give Obama the money, was the only one that could go up to the Senate. Virginia called him on that and debated the legality of his assertion. Then Frank tried again to bully her by accusing the Republicans of undermining the bail out. Foxx wasn’t moved.

After many Republicans and even Democrats began to back Representative Foxx, the House Minority leader, John Boehner stepped forward to support Foxx’s bill. He pointed out that, just as Foxx was charging, Frank’s bill actually did not provide adequate oversight nor transparency No one could tell how the money was being spent and they even were adding a laundry list of superfluous items on which the Treasury could spend the money. Yet the whole thing was to be done with taxpayers’ money as well as money borrowed from foreign countries.

The sweetest part of the whole debate was when Barney Frank began to sum up. He finally admitted that Foxx was correct in saying that her bill had as much possibility of going to the Senate as his. He continued by saying that debates such as this one today was what our founders wanted. Then he acknowledged that he was aware that the voters were overwhelmingly on Foxx’s side, and that the elite intellectuals in Washington really were not getting through to the American people.

So, in closing, he warned those businesses who expect to get the money, that they had better pay attention to the debate that Foxx had created by her bill. Speaking directly to the business leaders he warned them that if they did not straighten up, this debate today was a warning as to where the American people stand.

Virginia Foxx won today for all Americans. I have never been more proud of her and of the people who elected her.

Virginia Foxx, An American Hero

One hour after Virginia Foxx bill was passed in the House,and no major news group had run the story. No surprise that they would not be all over it, as the bill is the first major loss for Obama. Anyway, here is the first news I could find anywhere on the Internet and it is by an obscure paper:
VIRGINIA FOXX SCORES AGAIN

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Inaugural prayer slam prompts Obama smile

Posted: January 20, 2009
8:58 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
2009 WorldNetDaily
Outrage is erupting over the inauguration benediction by Rev. Joseph Lowery, an 87-year-old civil rights pioneer, for asking God to help mankind work for a day when "white would embrace what is right."

Lowery, known for co-founding the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., opened with a quote from the "Black National Anthem." He then asked God to encourage America to make "choices on the side of love, not hate, on the side of inclusion not exclusion, tolerance not intolerance" after President Barack Obama took the presidential oath.

Then he ended his prayer with, "Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around – when yellow will be mellow – when the red man can get ahead, man – and when white will embrace what is right."

Obama reacted to the benediction with a smile.

The crowd cheered and boomed with a loud "Amen."

However, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Lowery's prayer "offended" and was "far more memorable than the inaugural address by President Obama."

Referring to Lowery's "When black will not be asked to get in back" comment, Limbaugh responded, "When does that happen today? Did we not just inaugurate a black man as president of the United States?"

Limbaugh went through each statement about color, attempting to decipher Lowery's intended message.

"I know it's a left over from the '60s thing," he said. "It's not relevant today! Everybody here is living in the past, and they don't want anybody to think we've made any progress at all despite inaugurating Barack Obama as president today."

Repeating Lowery's "When white will embrace what is right" statement, Limbaugh said, "He just insulted this country, large numbers of which elected Barack Obama president of the United States."

Several angry bloggers posted reactions to Lowery's prayer, including the following:

Didn't whites just do that by electing Jesus Christ president?

Am I allowed to be offended?

Race card pulled during the inauguration. Wow that didn't take long.

It is completely inappropriate to have that in any prayer, much less a prayer at an inauguration that is supposed to be about how "We're all one."

Black … brown … red … yellow … white? I'm stunned. The prayer is so racist and so inappropriate. Is Rev. Lowery just a kinder, gentler Rev. Wright?

You guys are all spelling it wrong. That's the problem. I'm sure that if you look at his notes you'll see that it says "… whites will embrace what is Wright."

An editorial from the London Daily Mail


The London Daily Mail
3 January 2009

Obama's Victory ?.......Or....

A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.

A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.

Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement.

Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak negatively of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition.

A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.

A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.

Congratulations America !
Editorial Staff - London Daily Mail

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama Inauguration Prayer Rick Warren

INSPIRATIONAL TO ME

EXCERPTS FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADDRESS:


In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Monday, January 19, 2009

"It'll Never Happen Here"


Gun owners now face what appears to be the seeming inevitability of nationwide gun registration and ammunition registration. Many longtime pro-gun advocates, even in their most fitful dreams, had not foreseen the immensely somber showdown we are confronting.

One writer (Bob Unruh in World Net Daily) appropriately used the phrase “perfect storm” to describe what American gun owners face at this moment in history. All the elemental societal and political forces seem to have conjoined to form an immense “low pressure” zone of impending anti-gun legislation. The goal: Confiscation.

Is “confiscation” too harsh a word? Ladies and gentlemen, every government on Earth that has orchestrated a genocide first registered, and then confiscated, personal firearms.

Ironically, no one element of this “perfect storm of gun control” is actually new. We’ve had plenty of warning. It’s just that this time all the conditions truly are perfect. Like Katrina headed for New Orleans.

1. We’ve heard of ammunition registration schemes for years. Using the Georgia State Legislature as a probing device, the victim disarmament crowd is going to bar code your bullets, and, if they can pass the whole enchilada, make you “dispose of” your present ammunition by January of 2012. Of course, that means you will have to sign for every box of ammunition you buy from now on. My opinion? The NRA will squawk loudly … and then compromise. The NRA will consider it a victory that they get the “dispose of” clause dropped. Desired goal: Confiscation.

2. Let’s all watch as thousands of homecoming veterans become ineligible for gun ownership. This law is a done deal. The NRA backed it and Bush signed it. Some brave soldier, fighting house to house in Fallujah, might decide to seek some counseling for the horror he’s seen. Sure he’s got issues. War is hell. Ask any WWII, Korean, or Vietnam combat veteran. No one can remain psychically unscarred. But now this combat veteran, this soldier who offers his life to protect your freedom, will be denied the most fundamental human right, the right to self defense. Desired goal: Confiscation.

3. Universal handgun registration. And this one is wafting up from Barack Hussein Obama’s home State of Illinois. Again, this is a probe: Get a law passed on a State level and then let it “trickle up” to Congress and a President who will be the most anti gun in our history. Desired goal: Confiscation.

4. Obama’s pick for Attorney General, and pending legislation to give that officeholder complete personal discretion to ban firearms that were originally designed for military or law enforcement use. That means pump shotguns (used in WWI), Grampa’s old Garrand that he gave you (used in WWII), and any semi auto rifle or pistol that has military or police background use. Oh yeah, toss in your .308 deer rifle. It’s a “sniper rifle”. Desired goal: Confiscation.

Additionally Obama is going to probably get two chances at new Supreme Court justices. And, because the NRA long ago retreated into a reactive stance when it actually had the power to utterly defeat prior legislation, our so-called gun rights advocates will once again fall prey to typical “dialectic” maneuverings by the victim disarmament crowd. An insane bill is presented (thesis), reaching far beyond what our opponents actually want (at the moment), the NRA screams and takes a flaccid stand (antithesis) … and then compromises, and we get saddled with another sellout of our rights (synthesis).

What can be done? Petition the politicians who already ignore you? Petition the NRA Board of Directors, when it is blatantly obvious that the NRA was infiltrated by Bill of Rights saboteurs decades ago? No, all your letters and faxes and emails and phone calls won’t work with the two- faced connivers who are running things, both in D.C. and deep within the NRA. Forget the traitors and their dupes. Don’t waste your breath.

It’s time to take it to the streets. No, I’m not talking about open shooting … yet. I’m talking about educating your friends and neighbors. If every ardent gun owner can bring just one other person over to our somber understanding of freedom and private firearms, this battle … no, this war … will be won. You need a “secret weapon” that will quietly penetrate the awareness of your friends and neighbors.
What if every ardent gun owner brought two people over to our side? We can bury the moral perversity of victim disarmament for decades.

There’s a storm a comin’. Tell your neighbors. Yes, the “perfect storm” of “gun control” approaches. Batten down the hatches.

The Other Side of the Bailout

Sent in by an anonymous reader:
THE OTHER SIDE

Saturday, January 17, 2009

A Rich Vein for Holder Questions

Contributing Editor, NRO
By Andrew C. McCarthy

When Republicans controlled the White House, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee borked Bob Bork, rhetorically lynched Clarence Thomas, shelved Miguel Estrada, disappeared Jim Haynes, and tried to waterboard Michael Mukasey. The Committee’s hearing room remains the place where GOP nominations go to die. But with a Democrat about to move into the Oval Office, it’s apparently time for Change.

That should work quite nicely for Eric Holder, President-elect Obama’s nominee for attorney general. It’s a Change in the committee’s basic approach: from trumping up charges to sink impeccably qualified nominees to whitewashing history so a checkered nominee can sail through.

Of course, there was a time when Democrats, and even the New York Times, were embarrassed by Holder. That was eight years ago. And it wasn’t over failing to pay taxes or employing illegal immigrants—comparative trifles that the Judiciary Committee has nevertheless been known to treat as disqualifiers, not venial sins.

No, Holder’s transgressions involve matters directly related to his official duties. They involve gross misconduct while performing the same public duties Holder is now seeking to assume. They involve his role in Bill Clinton’s acceptance of gargantuan political contributions in exchange for a presidential pardon of financier fraudster Marc Rich, once among the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted fugitives.

Beginning on Thursday, the Judiciary Committee will convene a hearing to consider Holder’s nomination. Will the committee press him on Marc Rich? Will they insist on answers to their questions? I suggest queries like these, though I already know the answers:

Was Holder the linchpin of one of the most corrupt episodes in Justice Department history? He absolutely was: As Clinton pondered and finally pardoned Rich, in contravention of every DOJ clemency guideline, Deputy Attorney General Holder—then hoping to become Attorney General Holder in a Gore administration—ran interference against his own Justice Department in a transparent effort to ingratiate himself with Jack Quinn, Rich’s lawyer and an Al Gore confidant.

Did Holder advise Rich’s legal team and advocate on the fugitive’s behalf against his own Justice Department prosecutors—even before there was a pardon application? You bet he did. And all the current rationalizing about how Holder can’t be held responsible for Clinton’s abuse of the pardon power is specious.

Holder is accountable for his shameful participation in Clinton’s pardon decision—the pardon, as Clinton himself later said, wouldn’t have happened without Holder’s green light. But even if that weren’t so, there remains the stubborn fact that, long before Rich applied for a pardon, Holder was working with the fugitive’s team and against his own Justice Department. The report of a congressional investigation no one seems to want to read explains it all in gory detail.

Was fugitivity a crime at the time? Yes, it was (and is) a felony under Section 1073 of the federal penal code.

Was it Justice Department policy that prosecutors should refuse to negotiate with indicted fugitives until those fugitives surrendered to face the charges, just as every American who knows he has been indicted by a grand jury is expected to do? Yes, of course it was. Unless we want to encourage criminals to become fugitives, what other conceivable DOJ policy could there be?

Was that the policy for all fugitives—regardless of whether the government had spent goo-gobs of the public’s money trying to apprehend them for 20 years? It sure was.

Did Holder tell Quinn—again, before there ever was a pardon application—that he thought it was “ridiculous” for New York prosecutors to refuse to meet with a fugitive’s lawyers? Did he, in addition, give Quinn advice on how to pressure those prosecutors into negotiations aimed at settling the case without jail time? Yes, and yes.

Did Holder know virtually nothing about the case against Marc Rich at the time he tried to help the fugitive get out from under the indictment? Did he remain willfully ignorant of Rich’s crimes when, months later, he worked behind the scenes against his own prosecutors to secure the pardon? Yes—a congressional investigation concluded that Holder’s “sum total of knowledge about Rich came from a page of talking points provided to him by Jack Quinn in 2000, before the pardon effort had even begun.” In fact, Holder told Quinn that he didn’t want a copy of the pardon petition—taking a copy would have made it harder for Holder to avoid learning details about Rich’s crimes, and harder for him to justify circumventing the Justice Department’s pardon process.

Is it really fair to say Holder was working for an international fugitive against his own Justice Department? Is it fair to say he arranged to have Quinn go straight to President Clinton rather than through the DOJ pardon process which Holder was responsible for upholding? It is more than fair—it is exactly what the congressional committee that investigated the Rich pardon said:

The evidence indicates that Eric Holder was deliberately assisting Quinn with the Rich petition, and deliberately cut the rest of the Justice Department out of the process to help Quinn obtain the pardon for Marc Rich. This conclusion is supported by the following email, which was sent by Quinn to [other Rich lawyers] on November 18, 2000 . . . :

Subject: eric

spoke to him last evening. he says go straight to wh. also says timing is good. we shd get in soon. will elab when we speak.

As the committee concluded, this e-mail demonstrated that Holder told Quinn to send the Rich pardon application directly to the White House rather than to the DOJ’s pardon attorney (who reported to Holder). It also showed that Holder had been giving the matter plenty of thought and believed the timing was optimal for Rich to get favorable treatment. This, as the committee concluded, “contradict[ed] the heart of Holder’s defense,” provided to Congress under oath, that he was not focused on the Rich pardon until weeks later, in the waning January days of Clinton’s second term.

Was Holder’s explanation of his conduct among the most incoherent, implausible testimony that Congress had ever heard? Did he, for example, take the astounding position that being a fugitive actually helps a pardon petition because the lack of a conviction after trial leaves no way to evaluate the strength of the case? Did he indicate that, in a choice between Justice Department prosecutors who’d built a case approved by a grand jury and a fugitive who skips the country rather than answering the charges, he believed it was better to side with the fugitive?

Yes, yes, and yes. That is, no doubt, why the committee found Holder’s testimony “difficult to believe” and concluded that his “actions were unconscionable.” (Compare Chuck Schumer, July 26, 2007: “The attorney general is meant to be the chief law enforcement officer of the land. He must be a person of truth and candor and integrity”; Mark Pryor, March 15, 2007: “When an attorney general lies to a United States senator, I think it is time for that attorney general to go.”)

Let’s completely set aside Holder’s key participation in the equally inexplicable pardons of FALN terrorists. With the Marc Rich debacle on his résumé, could any Republican—any Republican—hope to be confirmed for any job, much less the nation’s highest law-enforcement office?

Do we really have to ask?



More Questions About Geithner


Were his tax problems a “common mistake”? And what about those accountants?

By Byron York
In their defense of Treasury Secretary–designate Timothy Geithner, members of the Obama transition team have said that his failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes during a 2001–03 stint at the International Monetary Fund was a “common mistake,” and, in addition, that Geithner received the approval of two accountants for his erroneous tax returns. Now, new details are emerging that cast doubt on both of those arguments.

“He made a common mistake,” incoming White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said of Geithner this week. Obama officials also cited an Internal Revenue Service publication that said “as many as half” of the employees of international organizations make mistakes on their tax returns.

But that figure appears to be a significant exaggeration of the specific situation at the International Monetary Fund, where Geithner worked. “There’s not a high incidence of non-payment of taxes,” Bill Murray, an IMF spokesman, told me Thursday. “We have a very low incidence of that here.”

Murray took care to say that he was not commenting in any way on Geithner or the current controversy. But he pointed out that the IMF has an ethics office, which issues a yearly report on various transgressions among the organization’s 2,600 employees (about 25 percent of whom are Americans). The ethics office’s 2007 report contained a chart of those transgressions; tax problems were listed under the heading “Unpaid Debts.” In that column, there was exactly one example in 2007. “It’s not unprecedented that people have had problems paying their taxes, or not paying their taxes, but it’s not a widespread issue,” Murray told me.

Other sources who have looked into the matter suggest that the IRS’s “as many as half” estimate includes many employees of embassies, particularly lower-level employees—like those working in food service and security—who might not have great experience in financial matters. That group doesn’t include Geithner, who was a high-ranking official in the Treasury Department before joining IMF. In addition, the IRS estimate included many different categories of mistakes in its estimate, including employees who “either fail to report their wages, claim deductions they are not entitled to, incorrectly establish SEP/IRA retirement plans, fail to pay self-employment tax or fail to file tax returns at all.”

Finally, staffers for the Senate Finance Committee interviewed an official at the IMF as part of their Geithner research and were told that problems such as Geithner’s occurred perhaps once a year. Given all that, it’s probably more accurate to say that Geithner-like mistakes by high-ranking IMF officials are not only not common, but seem to be quite rare.

As for the matter of Geithner’s accountants, a memo issued by the Obama transition earlier this week said that Geithner prepared his 2001 returns—the first in which he failed to pay self-employment tax—himself. “However, an accountant reviewed his 2001 returns as part of an amended return filed [in] 2002,” the transition memo said, “and also failed to catch the mistake on the self-employment taxes.”

It turns out that is not the complete story. According to knowledgeable sources, Geithner, when he prepared his original 2001 return, reported that he would make a pension contribution. He later decided not to make that contribution and therefore needed to file an amended return. He approached an accountant for the specific purpose of changing the pension contribution entry and filing the amended return. It appears that Geithner gave the accountant the tax return, but no underlying documentation.

Senate staffers have talked to the accountant and have concluded that the accountant approached the task narrowly—he fixed the pension line and filed the amended return. It could be that Geithner thought the accountant gave the return more careful scrutiny overall, but it seems doubtful that the accountant gave Geithner’s return a clean bill of health, as the transition office implied.

The transition office also says another accountant prepared Geithner’s 2003 and 2004 returns—2003 was the last one in which Geithner actually worked for the IMF. The transition memo says that the second accountant “prepared Mr. Geithner’s 2003 and 2004 returns and advised him in writing that he was exempt [from] self-employment taxes on his IMF income.”

If that is the case, it is still true that Geithner filed his 2001 and 2002 returns—and collected reimbursement from the IMF for doing so—without paying self-employment taxes. And whatever the second accountant said, it appears that Geithner himself has not claimed to investigators that he believed he was exempt from paying the self-employment tax. If he had been assured by experts that he was exempt, then he might have been expected to make that argument, but he didn’t. Instead, it appears Geithner has told investigators that he wasn’t aware that he hadn’t made the payments, that it somehow slipped by him.

Geithner’s confirmation hearing is now set for Wednesday. Look for these issues to be the subject of extensive questioning.

Our Blog. Not for Sissies


In the nation, Gallup finds:
34% of Americans identify as Democrats
30% as Republican
34% as Independents

Today’s post is about blogging. Personally, I feel we have some really bright people on the Right reading and commenting on this blog. Regarding those who read and debate from the Left I also respect as able in giving an excellent portrayal of the liberal viewpoint. (But as Reagan says:
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.")

Anyone reading the blog, knows that neither side has been able to convince the other to move. However, both sides are great at articulating their viewpoints and giving us real insight into how both sides think.

So should we give up? My answer is a resounding “No way!” Readers and writers, keep in mind that statistically, there are 34% Independents out there who can’t make up their minds. Independents read blogs.

Therefore, I have no patience with those who feel it is hopeless because neither side gives an inch on this blog. Nor those who tell me “I just can’t stand all that bickering.” Whoosies. Come on you pansies in my party, join the fun.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Rep. Foxx Now in The Majors

In Case You Missed It - Request triggers vote on Foxx bill to block bailout By Sean Mussenden - January 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - It's unusual for a Republican to set the agenda for the Democratic-controlled Congress.

But Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-5th, is forcing a vote next week to block the second half of the controversial $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

The Bush administration has already distributed $350 billion to banks and auto companies under the bailout, known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. After a request from President-elect Obama, Bush indicated this week that he would release the remaining $350 billion.

Because of an obscure provision buried in the fine print of the bailout legislation that was passed last fall, Bush's move prompts an automatic House vote next week on a bill sponsored by Foxx to block the additional money.

"I think people all over the country are very unhappy with how the money has been spent. I'm hoping the public will put a lot of pressure on their members to say, ‘Don't do any more of this,'" Foxx, who voted against the bailout last fall, said in an interview.

Even if Foxx's bill passes, though, it's unlikely to block the release of the money. For that to happen, the Senate would have to concur. Yesterday, the Senate voted 52-42 against a bill identical to Foxx's that would have blocked the release of the money.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., voted to block the release while Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., voted to allow it. Hagan, who had opposed the bailout while running for Congress, changed her position, saying that Obama provided assurances that the money would be invested with accountability.

The bailout was intended to loosen tight credit markets that were choking off the economy. The Bush administration originally said it would solve the problem by buying toxic securities backed by failing mortgages but later decided to directly infuse troubled banks with cash to make loans.

The bailout was controversial from the start. After an outpouring of public opposition, the House initially voted the bailout down but later passed it after Democratic leaders made changes.

Since then, Democrats and Republicans have widely criticized its lack of transparency and the fact that many banks held on to the government money instead of lending it to individuals and businesses.

Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have promised changes to TARP to increase oversight, direct a large chunk of the money to help foreclosed homeowners and make sure that banks are lending the money.

"Keeping flow of credit is critical.... I, like many, are disappointed with how the whole TARP process has unfolded. There hasn't been enough oversight," Obama said Sunday on ABC's This Week.


Political Mischief in the Bailout

POLITICAL MISCHIEF

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Foxx All A Twitter


Posted by Mark Binker on January 14, 2009 9:15 AM
A dozen years ago, when I was a little baby reporter, a politician would be considered technologically hip if they had their own static web page, changed out the photos every once in a while and posted news releases.

Five years ago, the hipness standard was whether the pol in question had a blog. They got extra points for answering comments and appearing to write it themselves.

These days, the new gold standard for technological hipness among the political set seems to be whether or not they use Twitter and how well.

For those in need of Twitter background, my boss has some good links, as does my hipper colleague Joe Killian.

In short: It is a micro-blogging service that lets you post updates of 140 characters or less. When it's used most effectively, it becomes a tool of interaction. The best users don't just point to content elsewhere, but engage others in conversation.

There's a Web page dedicated to encouraging members of Congress to tweet, but its N.C. section is a bit out of date. And some might remember the stir last year over Rep. John Culberson of Texas wanting to Tweet and temporarily getting shut down by House rules.

Enter Rep. Virginia Foxx, a Republican from Winston-Salem representing North Carolina's 5th Congressional District. She has had a Twitter account for a while now but has picked up the pace a bit in recent weeks. She seems to be beginning to get the hang of it, but I've had people ask me whether it's really her or a staff member. When I saw her last week, I asked.

In short: Yes, Foxx does her own twittering.

"My staff got after me about being up to date," she said. The Republican conference in the House has also pushed the idea of being more technologically current, she said.

Her latest one (from this morning) reads:

Did 2 call in radio shows at 6 30 am got day started right. Become member of powerful Rules Comm today and am pleased. More on that later. The Rules Committee thing is news (she piped that out in a press release last night). And Foxx will really climb the savvy scale when she sends out notice of her radio appearance in advance or discusses the content afterward.

Sen. Kay Hagan had a campaign Twitter account, but it seems to be largely dormant. I don't see signs of other North Carolina Congress-critters on Twitter, but if you know of any, send them my way.
Click to Twitter

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Foxx Appointed to House Rules Committee

Committee sets the legislative agenda for the House

Washington, DC—House Republican Leader John Boehner appointed Congresswoman Virginia Foxx to serve on the House Committee on Rules today. The Rules Committee is the powerful House committee that determines what legislation comes to the House floor for a vote and under what circumstances that legislation is considered.

“Joining the Rules Committee is a privilege and an honor and I am excited about the new opportunities this committee assignment gives me to stand up for hard-working Americans,” Foxx said. “I plan to play a productive role on the Committee that shapes the legislative agenda and debate in the House.”

In addition to controlling the legislative agenda for the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee also controls the amendment process for each bill, determining which amendments are in order for specific legislation.

“Congresswoman Foxx’s reputation as a hard-working and committed conservative makes her a great addition to the Rules Committee,” said Republican Leader Boehner. “She has been a tireless advocate for the rights of the Republican Minority and, more importantly, the rights of every American to be represented in the ongoing debates on Capitol Hill.

“The Democratic Majority has routinely sought to silence the voices of tens of millions of Americans represented by Republicans by changing or ignoring House rules that traditionally guarantee fair and open debate. The Rules Committee is on the frontlines of this fight, and at no time are House Republicans and the Americans we represent counting on Rep. Foxx’s leadership more than right now.”

Rules Committee Ranking Member David Dreier also praised Foxx as an ideal choice for the Rules Committee.

“Virginia has a common sense approach to solving the problems confronting the American people, and is committed to holding the government accountable while reducing federal spending,” said Ranking Member Dreier. “She is an excellent communicator, a hard worker, and will be a tremendous asset to our Republican team on the Rules Committee.”

Monday, January 12, 2009

Feel Like a Trillion Bucks


From the Wall Street Journal
January 5, 2009

Only WWII was pricier than Obama's stimulus plans.
Amid the Great Society spending boom of the 1960s, Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen famously quipped, "A billion here, a billion there -- pretty soon, you're talking real money." How quaint. In modern Washington, trillion is the new billion.

Barack Obama will soon request an economic stimulus package of some $775 billion over a mere two years and optimistically hopes to hold the final figure under $1 trillion. The latest leaks say this will include targeted tax cuts of perhaps $300 billion, though when Congress gets involved both numbers are likely to grow given the political imperative for everyone to get as much as possible into law while the honeymoon aura lingers. But before we get lost in the policy details, let's pause to consider that number of $1 trillion.

The human mind is not well equipped to fathom a number that large. A check for $1 trillion -- a million million dollars -- would have 12 zeros to the left of the decimal point. Homo sapiens hadn't evolved a trillion seconds ago: 31,546 years in the past, Neanderthals were still trying to make fire.

More immediately, $1 trillion is about one-third of annual U.S. government spending and 13% of the U.S. economy. It is more than the GDP of all but 12 countries in 2007 (America, Japan, Germany, China, the U.K., France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Brazil, Russia and India, in that order). A trillion dollars is also:

- The difference between President Bush's proposed budgets of 2002 and 2008 -- the former being the first in U.S. history to exceed $2 trillion, the latter being the first to exceed $3 trillion.
- The all-but-certain minimum deficit in the federal fisc in 2009. A trillion-and-a-half isn't out of the question.
- Roughly one-sixth of the entire outstanding U.S. federal debt held by the public, one-tenth if you include intragovernmental debt (such as Social Security IOUs).
- The drop in market capitalization of the American financial industry since last October.
- The cost that Al Gore attaches to his plan to liberate the U.S. of carbon-based energy.
- Not even close to the unfunded liability of Medicare, which is $36 trillion over the next 75 years, give or take a few trillion.

From an historical perspective, $1 trillion is far more than the signature expenditures over the life of American government, the ones the politicians and columnists cite when they say we need another moon shot, Manhattan Project or [insert cliché here] for this or that priority. In fact, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the Apollo space program cost $140 billion between 1961 and 1972, while the race for the atomic bomb came in at a bargain $29 billion.

But those were programs aimed at single, technically difficult goals. What about other big-ticket items? Well, Thomas Jefferson purchased Louisiana for $15 million in 1803. In today's dollars, that'd be about $261 million; rescaled as a share of the current economy, it'd still be a steal at $409 billion. If the Marshall Plan had started in 2004 instead of 1947, four years of equivalent foreign aid would run us about $755 billion as a share of today's GDP. The Panama Canal opened in 1914 after the U.S. had spent $7 billion in current dollars.

As for the precedents that Mr. Obama is presumably looking to, economists estimate overall outlays for the New Deal at about $32 billion, or $500 billion today. Dwight Eisenhower's interstate highway system, which still remains the largest public works project in the U.S., was originally estimated to take 12 years and cost $25 billion. It actually took 35 years and cost $114 billion, which is more than $800 billion in 2008 dollars.

The only specific American endeavor, ever, that tipped the trillion-dollar scale was World War II. That war -- in which 16 million U.S. troops fought for four years over two fronts -- cost about $4 trillion in adjusted dollars, or $17 trillion in today's GDP. Leave it to Mr. Obama and Congress to make even WWII seem like a relative bargain.

Foxx Out in Front

Tonight on National News, our super representative Virginia Foxx was identified as the member of the House rallying the troops. The newscaster even went so far as to say it was not known yet if she could get enough supporters to turn this into something better. Go ReP Foxx!

Legislation will deny second half of $700 billion government bailout

Washington, DC—Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (NC-05) today re-introduced bipartisan legislation for the 111th Congress to deny authorization of the second half of the 2008 $700 billion federal government bailout. The legislation is designed to take advantage of a provision in the 2008 bailout law that allows Congress to “disapprove” of the second half of the bailout.

“In the days since I first voted against the bailout last year the $700 billion of taxpayer money has turned into a giant political slush fund,” Rep. Foxx said. “Not only did the administration completely change course in its use of bailout money, but there has been absolutely no oversight of the first half of the bailout. This is taxpayers’ money we’re talking about.”

According to the 2008 bailout law, Congress has the power to withhold the second half of the bailout—$350 billion—when the President requests the money. Foxx’s legislation does just that. Thanks to the way the bailout law was written, Foxx’s measure must be considered by Congress within five days of when the White House requests the second half of the bailout cash.

The federal government had already doled out most of the first half of the bailout money—including nearly $18 billion for bailing out Detroit automakers in December.

During the distribution of the first $350 billion of the bailout the independent oversight required by the bailout law was virtually non-existent and the progress reports to Congress detailing where the bailout money was flowing were chronically late.

“Today we’re hearing about bailouts for everyone ranging from life insurance and credit card companies to automakers and state governments,” Foxx said. “Where does it stop and what about the hardworking taxpayers? I believe that this legislation is one of our last best hopes to rein in the endless bailouts.”

Friday, January 9, 2009

Dems Melt in the Heat of Burris Fiasco


Dems Melt in the Heat of Burris Fiasco
Like a Hershey bar in a Nevada parking lot.

By Jonah Goldberg

The Democrats are folding like an ironing board over this Roland Burris business, and for some reason people are surprised.

Just to catch up: The governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is in scalding-hot water over allegations he wanted to sell Barack Obama’s still-warm Senate seat. This was discovered via federal wiretaps of the helmet-haired governor’s phone conversations and fueled by some juicy dialogue better suited for fleet week in Manila.

In response, Senate Democrats took a Churchillian stand, vowing that no Blago appointee would ever be accepted by the Senate. No appointee, the Democrats insisted, so tainted with scandal could be allowed to sit in the same chamber that Ted Kennedy calls home.

The party of the infinitely elastic “living Constitution” suddenly planted their flag of principle in the terra firma of constitutional concrete and watched it flap in the hot wind of their political bloviation. Even after Blagojevich announced he was appointing Roland Burris, a respected but unremarkable black Illinois politician, to Obama’s seat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada stood his ground, pronouncing the move “unacceptable.”

But that resolve melted like a Hershey bar in a Nevada parking lot the moment Mr. Burris came to Washington. Apparently, the Constitution wasn’t on the Democrats’ side (Fancy that!) and liberals lacked the stomach to stand in the doorway of the Capitol and block admittance of a black man.

Indeed, that was Blago’s thinking all along. When the Democratic governor announced his decision, he assembled various black Illinois pols to support the move, including Rep. Bobby Rush, a Democrat from Chicago’s South Side and a founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party. Rush immediately played the race card at the press conference. “There are no African-Americans in the U.S. Senate. And I don’t think any U.S. senator who’s sitting in the Senate right now wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate,” he said.

In case you needed a ball-peen hammer to drive the point into your forehead, he added: “I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer ...”

Rush assembled more than 60 black ministers Sunday to rally around Burris at a Chicago church. “We are just faced with a hard-headed room of people in the Senate who want to keep an African-American out of the Senate,” Rush said. He condemned the Senate, where until recently Barack Obama served before becoming president of the United States, as “the last bastion of plantation politics.”

And that was all she wrote for Reid, who by next week should be on all fours like Kevin Bacon in Animal House, shouting, “Thank you sir! May I have another?” as Burris paddles him.

Now, I certainly understand why Reid & Co. caved. For starters, Reid’s not exactly the brightest crayon in the box.

But why all the fuss in the first place? Isn’t this how it always works? The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, an impressive African-American writer, is amazed that “Reid has been outmaneuvered by the sort of overt, hamfisted identity politics deployed in the ’70s.”

The ’70s? So this sort of thing stopped more than three decades ago? I had no idea. What planet do my newscasts come from?

I thought this was simply what liberals and Democrats do. When Newt Gingrich introduced the Contract with America, black Democrats denounced it as racist. Charlie Rangel proclaimed, “Hitler wasn’t even talking about doing these things.” When impeachment threatened Bill Clinton, he draped himself in black ministers and staffers. The NAACP ran an ad narrated by the daughter of James Byrd, a black man brutally murdered in a hate crime, insinuating that then-presidential candidate George W. Bush’s refusal to support hate-crime legislation in Texas was like murdering her father again. In the recent campaign, nearly the entire liberal punditocracy insisted that opposition to Barack Obama could only be explained by racism, a story line egged on by Obama himself when convenient.

And don’t tell me Blago’s corruption changes the equation. Has anyone read about the baleful history of minority set-aside programs in cities like Chicago? Cronies and grifters are routinely given sweetheart contracts under the guise of fighting discrimination when in reality it’s all a riot of kickbacks, “pay-to-play” and cronyism. People don’t call Jesse Jackson a shakedown artist for nothing.

There are two reasons why this spectacle shocks some liberals. The first is that Blago, Burris, and Rush used this tactic on fellow Democrats. And since Democrats can’t be motivated by racism, any ploy like this must be cynical. When the same gambit is used on Republicans, it’s called “speaking truth to power.” Second, some honestly believed that Obama represented a real change of the racial landscape. So far, alas, these folks just look naive.

GUTTING SECURITY: O'S DANGEROUS ANTI-TERROR PICKS


By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on January 8, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama's appointments to Homeland Security, the Justice Department and now the CIA indicate a virtual abandonment of the War on Terror.

As Homeland Security chief, he's named a governor whose only experience has been with the US-Mexican border. His attorney general pick, meanwhile, took the lead in pardoning FALN terrorists. Now he has rounded out his national-security and Justice Department teams by naming ultraliberals.

Leon Panetta, his choice for CIA chief, is as liberal as they come. Though originally a pro-Nixon congressman, he long ago embraced the left with the fervor of a convert and brings these values to the CIA.

As President Bill Clinton's chief of staff (a tenure that coincided with my own work with Clinton), he was a dedicated liberal, opposing accommodation with the Republicans who ran Congress and battling hard against a balanced-budget deal. After winning re-election, Clinton jettisoned Panetta for the more moderate Erskine Bowles in order to reach a deal with the GOP.

Plus, Panetta was a prime mover in the 1995 appointment of John Deutch to head CIA, replacing hardliner Jim Woolsey. Deutch eventually needed a presidential pardon after being caught committing a massive security breach by taking home his laptop, laden with secret files.

Choosing Panetta to head the CIA culminates liberals' 35-year crusade to take over the agency, humble its operatives and rein in its operations. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter named liberal JFK adviser Ted Sorenson to head CIA, only to have the nomination killed. In 1997, Clinton tried to name his ultraleftist National Security Adviser Tony Lake (who had quit Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's staff over Vietnam), only to have that nomination rejected as well.

Each time, the intelligence community acted to protect its own and curbed the liberal president's inclinations. But now, under Obama, the Democrats will finally have their way and appoint a liberal zealot to head the agency.

Panetta will, presumably, curb such practices as waterboarding, rendition and warrantless wiretapping. So we won't gather much intelligence - but our spies will dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

Over at Justice, Obama is naming four liberals to staff the agency, each determined to rein in effective intelligence-gathering.

Professor Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University Law School is to head the Office of Legal Counsel. She distinguished herself by writing a law-review article taking issue with President Bush's efforts to keep us safe. It was titled, "What's a President To Do: Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake of the Bush Administration Abuses." Presumably, she'll bring back the days of the wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, which led to our failure to examine the computer of "20th hijacker" Zacharias Moussaoui, which contained wire-fund-transfer information on the other hijackers.

No less an authority than Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who taught Elena Kagan, the new solicitor general, predicted that she and Johnsen would "freshly re-examine some of the positions the previous administration has taken."

Obama's other Justice appointments, David Ogden as deputy attorney general and Thomas Perrelli as associate AG, bring back Clinton/Reno Justice Department retreads. Both participated eagerly in the constraints on intelligence-gathering that left us so vulnerable on 9/11.

Bush's legacy shows one clear achievement: He kept us safe after 9/11. Now his successor's policies are about to eradicate that singular achievement. The liberals will, of course, all cheer these appointments and the policies they'll pursue once in office, but these appointments make it frighteningly more likely that we will, indeed, be hit again.

Solutions?


When NASA first planned to send up astronauts, they quickly discovered
that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity.

To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $1.2 billion
to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater,
on almost any surface including glass, and at temperatures ranging from
below freezing to 300 Celsius.

Confronted with the same problem, the Israelis used a pencil.

Get ready folks - Obamination is getting ready to screw us up, down and all around. Simple solutions abound, but he and his whole cabinet can't see the forest for the trees!

Sunday, January 4, 2009

Are Radical Liberals Mentally Ill? Part 1


I recently posted on the question of Liberal Mental Illness reporting I had purchased the book. Gregg, a reader wrote: “I'm anxious to hear your professional opinion of Rossiter's book.” So, here it is. By the way, I don’t recommend the book and will explain why in the next post. Here is a synopsis:

For Liberals, all suffering in the world is unjust. So, because there is suffering, people have rights to food, clothes, houses, jobs, education, medical care, child care, abortion, a clean and safe environment, adequate social status, leisure time and more. Persons who don’t have these are being neglected and deprived.

To the Liberal mind, the world is filled with sorrow, meanness, misfortune, poverty, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization and injustice. The sources of pain are the predators, Big Business, greedy capitalists, the oppressors, the rich and powerful.

To wall the person off from discomfort, people are taught they are not responsible, self-pity and victimization is encouraged, dependency on government is promoted, certain violence and theft are rationalized, financial obligations can be excused, complaining and blaming are prescribed.

The cure for this endless malaise is a large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society from the cradle to the grave. Such government is the only way of meeting the entitlements, while protecting against the predators.

The adult citizen’s dependent attachment to government however, comes at an enormous price. The constant growth of the politicians’ power to gratify, is paralleled by a constant growth in his power to dominate. For Rossiter as a psychologist, the result is infantilization which stunts psychological growth.

The mentally healthy person on the other hand, is “a competent adult.” If all goes well enough in the course of a child’s growth, the end result will be a competent adult. . . .individuals in whom certain skills, together with certain capacities for the regulation of impulse, emotion and behavior, have been firmly installed in the psyche, along with the ability to cooperate with others for constructive purposes.

In a free society, where the innate potential for growth to competence is permitted, the natural outcome of child development is the self-directing/interdependent adult who is able to meet, through his own efforts, in voluntary cooperation with others, all of the essential biological, psychological and social needs. This system is true to human nature.

Are Radical Liberals Mentally Ill? Part 2

Rossiter concludes this way: Most people can see the damage done to the psyches of people under collectivism whether it be Communist Russia and China, or Socialist Western Europe and in Latin America. On the other hand, the total inability to acknowledge this obvious fact has to come from some sort of psychological obsession.

He writes: “It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them ( the Liberal Agenda), contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. “But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalisms’ irrationality, far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason, can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind, that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda, are the product of disturbed personalities.” (p.330)

If one is willing to accept Rossiter’s foundation than it would logically follow that he had to arrive at the conclusions he did. My problem now however is with his discussion of the causes of the pathology of the Liberal Mind. Rossiter is a psychoanalyst, so he gives the psychoanalyst’ explanation. For the psychoanalyst, psychopathology comes from early childhood experiences. Therefore, if a person is obsessive about establishing a Parent State and oblivious to his own internal motivations, he is obviously trying to create the safe childhood he never experienced. Psychoanalysts are satisfied with their answers and even though my first training was in psychoanalysis and my first analysis was by a student of a student of Anna Freud, I would have much rather Rossiter came up with something new. Otherwise, he does not add to psychological science.

For example, these days, the most intriguing discoveries in the field of psychology, are coming from our new found ability to match external behaviors with internal brain functions. So far this is new research and presently hampered by the shortage of research funds, so we have a long way to go. However, here is a teaser:

As political physiologists study how political ideology works at its most basic level of physiology, they find that liberals and conservatives experience the world differently. (Boy does that show up on this blog! We live on different planets from one another.) That is what the physiologists are beginning to uncover. "Those who want an end to political bickering will have to come to terms with the fact that being conservative or being liberal is often genetically based and therefore unlikely to be jawboned or reformed away," said John Alford, a Rice University political scientist who is involved in the new field.

As previously mentioned, the research is scanty but one brain study of difference between conservatives and liberals found that conservatives’ brains are more sensitive to threats than liberals’, and liberals’ brains are more responsive to new cues. The meaning of that research would probably be interpreted differently by each group. For example the conservative might say “our brains’ sensitivity to threat explains why we are not afraid to acknowledge we live in a dangerous world.” The liberal might say, “our brains’ sensitivity to the new is why we are not afraid to look for new solutions.” Whatever.

Anyway, the real future of psychology for me, is brain function. Psychoanalysis failed because even Freud acknowledged that when you look for causes in childhood, you find multiple causation. Thus, psychoanalysis could never be used for prediction. Different children respond differently to the same threat. As Nietzsche observed: “What does not kill me makes me stronger.”

There are other brain differences which when fleshed out will become interesting in the future and may play into political differences. There is a different chemical in the brain of an introvert and a shortage of that chemical in the extrovert. This difference causes the introvert to be hyper sensitive to stimulation and the extrovert has the need to hype himself to create the chemical.

There are differences between male and female brains. Stay tuned. Bottom line, Rossiter’s description of the pathology is interesting. His analysis of the cause will seem silly to those who have never studied psychoanalysis. I just wish he had discovered something better along the lines of treatment for the disorder. (Oops, always looking for the new, I sound like I possess a Liberals’ brain.)

Reid Too Big for His Britches

The Constitution says that each house of Congress “shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members” and may punish members for “disorderly behavior” or, on a two-thirds vote, expel a sitting member. Neither provision justifies excluding a senator because of the unrelated wrongdoing of the governor making the appointment.

Actually, it’s doubtful whether the Senate could refuse to seat – as opposed to expelling once seated – any duly elected (or by extension appointed) member who met age, residency and citizenship requirements. In 1969, the Supreme Court overturned a resolution by the House barring Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. (D-N.Y.) from taking his seat. Powell had been accused of financial improprieties.

Exasperated as they are at being outfoxed by Blagojevich, his colleagues and critics must face the fact that he is still the governor of Illinois and empowered to appoint an interim U.S. senator. It’s not a pretty situation, but it’s the law.From Los Angelis Times

Saturday, January 3, 2009

GOP Still Alve and Well

In this month’s Newsmax, Ben Stein said actually the election proved the GOP alive and well. (page 34)

Obama spent 8 times as much as McCain, but still McCain received nearly half the vote.
The media was almost all in the tank with Obama, but still McCain received nearly half the vote.
The economy was crashing, but still McCain received nearly half the vote.
The GOP was running with a spectacularly unpopular president in the White House, but still McCain received nearly half the vote.
The media was mocking and demeaning the GOP vice-presidential candidate, but still McCain received nearly half the vote.
He was running on a platform of support for a very unpopular war, but still McCain received nearly half the vote.
African Americans voted in unheard of numbers and nearly 100% for Obama, but still McCain received nearly half the vote.
Obama was a far better speaker than McCain, but still McCain received nearly half the vote.
Obama ran a much better campaign than McCain, but still McCain received nearly half the vote.

Friday, January 2, 2009

Doesn't Have to be Pork

Republicans are in a double bind. They believe the bailout is a potential disaster. Yet if they appear to the American people as obstructionist and the crisis deepens, they will be blamed.

Many historians today, believe that F.D.R actually prolonged recovery during the Great Depression. Enlarging the always inefficient government created the impossibility for the more efficient private sector to raise capital. With a trillion dollar bailout, the Democrats appear poised to repeat the same debacle.

It is hoped that Republicans have creative ideas to save the American taxpayer from the mistakes, waste and fraud coming. Also, we hope they can better explain themselves to the public better than they have to date.

Because there will be no way of stopping this runaway train the Democrats will be on, then we all need to be seeking ways to switch it to better tracks. A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal is an example. Does Not Have to Be Pork