**UPDATE**
An Arkansas prosecutor wrote a letter to Huckabee complaining about his clemency procedures. Huckabee's response was to laugh out loud. He's toast.
****
Mike Huckabee while Governor of Arkansas granted clemency to the alleged murderer of four police officers.
This link has all of the pertinent information as well as relevant links including Huckabee's statement.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Conserving Conservatism
Most conservatives believe they are underrepresented in the Republican party but there is disagreement on how conservatives should proceed to rectify it. Some believe the "big tent" approach waters down the purity of conservatism in the party. There is now talk of a "Purity Test". Then there are those who believe nothing short of a third party will do. Others believe (myself included) a third party under the current system will guarantee (think Clinton being elected with 43% of the vote) Democrat control for generations and that Republicans still won't get the message. The thought of having to choose between the "lessor of two evils" is so distasteful that they are willing to take that chance. Is choosing between the lessor of three or four evils any better? Can any candidate carve out a platform that 51% of voters agree 100% with? Is a candidate that is very conservative on all but two issues (immigration and spending for instance) evil?
Considering the fact that we have a right-of-center country, why don't we have a government that reflects that? Simply put, the American public has had the Republican party defined to them by the opposition. Newsflash, Republicans are not racist, they are not sexist, they are good stewards of the earth, they are more generous with charity than Democrats, they aren't richer or greedier than Democrats and they don't corner the market in religious zealotry as Reverend Wright showed us. These notions should not be debated. They should be ignored.
As long as Republicans tacitly accept these characterizations by debating them, they will loose. As long as they try to ingratiate themselves to the left by hiding from truth out of fear, Democrats will win. A good example of this are the high profile Republicans (Michael Steele and others) that criticized Rush Limbaugh, not on the facts but to show they somehow have more legitimacy because they are willing to criticize him. This was based on the left's definition of Rush which had little connection with the actual Rush. That's why they ended up having to apologize. It made them look stupid and not a single issue was ever debated. To what end?
The left won't change. The press won't change. Republicans must accept that and quit allowing themselves to be defined.
Another problem is the system. There are good lifetime politicians but they are rare. Too much time in Washington skews reality for most. Term limits are badly needed, incumbents have inherent advantages and that's not healthy.
Preferential voting is an idea worth considering and was the motivation for this post. It would make a third party viable.
Personally, I would be in favor of a requirement to pass some kind of civics (or even intelligence) test to vote. Voting is not a right.
It's hard to make the case that the Republican party hasn't lost its way. The debate is on what to do about it. Lest you think we have no power remember, if not for our voice we would have public option health care by now. Harriet Meyers would be sitting on the Supreme Court and Bush's immigration plan would be law.
We have the power but the ballot box is not enough. There are Democrats who have said they would gladly commit political suicide to pass health care, we'll see. That would change politics much like suicide hijackers changed war.
Considering the fact that we have a right-of-center country, why don't we have a government that reflects that? Simply put, the American public has had the Republican party defined to them by the opposition. Newsflash, Republicans are not racist, they are not sexist, they are good stewards of the earth, they are more generous with charity than Democrats, they aren't richer or greedier than Democrats and they don't corner the market in religious zealotry as Reverend Wright showed us. These notions should not be debated. They should be ignored.
As long as Republicans tacitly accept these characterizations by debating them, they will loose. As long as they try to ingratiate themselves to the left by hiding from truth out of fear, Democrats will win. A good example of this are the high profile Republicans (Michael Steele and others) that criticized Rush Limbaugh, not on the facts but to show they somehow have more legitimacy because they are willing to criticize him. This was based on the left's definition of Rush which had little connection with the actual Rush. That's why they ended up having to apologize. It made them look stupid and not a single issue was ever debated. To what end?
The left won't change. The press won't change. Republicans must accept that and quit allowing themselves to be defined.
Another problem is the system. There are good lifetime politicians but they are rare. Too much time in Washington skews reality for most. Term limits are badly needed, incumbents have inherent advantages and that's not healthy.
Preferential voting is an idea worth considering and was the motivation for this post. It would make a third party viable.
Personally, I would be in favor of a requirement to pass some kind of civics (or even intelligence) test to vote. Voting is not a right.
It's hard to make the case that the Republican party hasn't lost its way. The debate is on what to do about it. Lest you think we have no power remember, if not for our voice we would have public option health care by now. Harriet Meyers would be sitting on the Supreme Court and Bush's immigration plan would be law.
We have the power but the ballot box is not enough. There are Democrats who have said they would gladly commit political suicide to pass health care, we'll see. That would change politics much like suicide hijackers changed war.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Good Neighbor
The sign reads:
My next door neighbor wants to ban all guns.
Their house is not armed.
Out of respect for their opinions
I promise not to use my gun to protect them
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thanks to Sarkazein.
George Washington gives thanks.
General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
(signed) G. Washington
George Washington gives thanks.
General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
(signed) G. Washington
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
THE YOUNG TURN AGAINST OBAMACARE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Previously, we reported to you that our national polling showed that the under-30 voters were the strongest supporters of the Obama healthcare initiative. While seniors opposed it by almost 2-to-1 and voters 30-64 opposed it by five- to 10-point margins, the under-30 voters backed his program by 58-30.
So with the funds you have donated, we ran television advertisements and an Internet campaign aimed at young people focused in Arkansas, North Dakota and Maine. The results are incredible! Now under-30 voters are the strongest opponents of the plan. In the table below, we show you the vote on the Obama plan broken down by age. (We aggregated all three states so we would have enough interviews to make the age subsets statistically meaningful.)
Support/Oppose Obama plan, combined data for Arkansas, North Dakota and Maine
Age Plan Support Oppose Obama Plan
Under 30 25% Support 65% Oppose
30-49 28% Support 60% Oppose
50-64 41% Support 50% Oppose
Over 65 30% Support 55% Oppose
The polling had predicted that the young would swing sharply and dramatically against the Obama program once they got the key information about it, but we are blown away by these results.
These data are from polls the League of American Voters commissioned John Zogby to conduct. Commenting on the results, John said, "These results among 18- to 29-year-olds are striking. It puts in jeopardy the whole theory of the new Democratic majority, because young people are essential to that base."
Boy, is he ever correct!
At the same time that we are seeing this big shift, the national data on ObamaCare continues to show slippage. Rasmussen shows support down to 38 percent (56 percent opposed) from 45-52 right after the House vote.
Will the Senate listen to public opinion? Damn right they will! At this rate, they would have to face the loss of their entire political base to pass this legislation. Politicians don't work that way! These early procedural votes don't mean much. As George W. Bush said in the war on terror, "We have to be right all the time. The enemy just has to get it right once." Now it is the opposite. We just need to win one vote to kill the plan. They need to win them all. And at this rate, the plan is in deep, deep trouble.
Previously, we reported to you that our national polling showed that the under-30 voters were the strongest supporters of the Obama healthcare initiative. While seniors opposed it by almost 2-to-1 and voters 30-64 opposed it by five- to 10-point margins, the under-30 voters backed his program by 58-30.
So with the funds you have donated, we ran television advertisements and an Internet campaign aimed at young people focused in Arkansas, North Dakota and Maine. The results are incredible! Now under-30 voters are the strongest opponents of the plan. In the table below, we show you the vote on the Obama plan broken down by age. (We aggregated all three states so we would have enough interviews to make the age subsets statistically meaningful.)
Support/Oppose Obama plan, combined data for Arkansas, North Dakota and Maine
Age Plan Support Oppose Obama Plan
Under 30 25% Support 65% Oppose
30-49 28% Support 60% Oppose
50-64 41% Support 50% Oppose
Over 65 30% Support 55% Oppose
The polling had predicted that the young would swing sharply and dramatically against the Obama program once they got the key information about it, but we are blown away by these results.
These data are from polls the League of American Voters commissioned John Zogby to conduct. Commenting on the results, John said, "These results among 18- to 29-year-olds are striking. It puts in jeopardy the whole theory of the new Democratic majority, because young people are essential to that base."
Boy, is he ever correct!
At the same time that we are seeing this big shift, the national data on ObamaCare continues to show slippage. Rasmussen shows support down to 38 percent (56 percent opposed) from 45-52 right after the House vote.
Will the Senate listen to public opinion? Damn right they will! At this rate, they would have to face the loss of their entire political base to pass this legislation. Politicians don't work that way! These early procedural votes don't mean much. As George W. Bush said in the war on terror, "We have to be right all the time. The enemy just has to get it right once." Now it is the opposite. We just need to win one vote to kill the plan. They need to win them all. And at this rate, the plan is in deep, deep trouble.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Global Warming Fraud Exposed
**UPDATE**
New Zealand too?
****
**UPDATE**
Obama's "Climate Czar",Carol Browner, dismisses the hacked emails. She says she will stick "with the 2,500 scientists..." The article from the conservative "Washington Times" refers to the "consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change". That is telling on two counts. First, it's not "international" it's the "Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change". Secondly, they are not all "climate scientist" as the Stossel video explains, there are activist as well.
****
**UPDATE**
American Thinker has analyzed the source code for the programs that East Angelina's CRU used. It's even more devious that we thought. Newsbusters is all over this story and has several post on the subject. It's worth a look. The "American Thinker" article is very technical. This Newsbusters post has the link within it for you tech heads. I'm linking the Newsbusters post because is nutshells it nicely.
The press continues to be silent.
****
Thanks to Guy Faulkes for contributing this.
The Wall Street Journal and James Inhofe tell the story. The Inhofe link has several updates within it which are worth reading.
If you haven't heard much about this, here's why.
Here is a database of all the emails.
This is old but adds to this debate. It is the best summary that I've seen. It shows clearly the deception in Algore's hideous graph as well as the corruption of the IPCC.
New Zealand too?
****
**UPDATE**
Obama's "Climate Czar",Carol Browner, dismisses the hacked emails. She says she will stick "with the 2,500 scientists..." The article from the conservative "Washington Times" refers to the "consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change". That is telling on two counts. First, it's not "international" it's the "Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change". Secondly, they are not all "climate scientist" as the Stossel video explains, there are activist as well.
****
**UPDATE**
American Thinker has analyzed the source code for the programs that East Angelina's CRU used. It's even more devious that we thought. Newsbusters is all over this story and has several post on the subject. It's worth a look. The "American Thinker" article is very technical. This Newsbusters post has the link within it for you tech heads. I'm linking the Newsbusters post because is nutshells it nicely.
The press continues to be silent.
****
Thanks to Guy Faulkes for contributing this.
The Wall Street Journal and James Inhofe tell the story. The Inhofe link has several updates within it which are worth reading.
If you haven't heard much about this, here's why.
Here is a database of all the emails.
This is old but adds to this debate. It is the best summary that I've seen. It shows clearly the deception in Algore's hideous graph as well as the corruption of the IPCC.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Transparency?
This story reminds me of Billy Dale and the travel office firings during the Clinton administration, only worse. Pure politics of personal destruction. Byron York reports the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin happened before the White House had the explanation they scrambled to come up with. Walpin has sued and should win if there is justice.
Support For Universal Health Care Plunges
**UPDATE**
Dr. Howard Dean says no to Obama care.
****
Obama's dastardly plan is on life support and we are the "Death Panel".
Dr. Howard Dean says no to Obama care.
****
Obama's dastardly plan is on life support and we are the "Death Panel".
SNL Destroys Obama
It's a bit gratuitously crude so I'll issue a mild content warning. That kept it from being posted yesterday but it's too good not to share.
Lies about Jobs
"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes." - David Obey (D-Wisc.) Chairman House appropriations Committee
We're now moving toward an incompetence that is so thoroughly invasive that it cannot be explained. Mark me down as one who no longer believes they are this stupid. Arrogant and naive, yes, total idiots, no. Whatever they're up to, it's not good. It's not rocket science to create jobs. One must try to achieve the unemployment rates we're seeing.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
"Big Government" Makes Big Threat
"And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation..."
Full story at Big Government.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
From Watauga Democrat Letter to Editor ll/16/09
Zoning - By Any Other Name
Editor:
At the final meeting for the Citizens' Comprehensive Plan, Brian Chatham, Soil and Water Conservation Technician, said we were not truthful in our letters to the editor. Chatham claimed the Farmland Protection Plan (FPP) was separate and had nothing to do with the Citizens' Comprehensive Plan. He emphasized the FPP had nothing to do with zoning. Calling us liars has long been the defense when we strike the truth. Our response to Mr. Chatham and the Planning Oversight Group can be confirmed by reading the grant application made for the FPP, which they call "Watauga Farming for the Future".
1. Project Title: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan
2. Applicant: Watauga County
3. Contact: Brian Chatham, Soil Conservation Technician
4) Grantor: NCDA&CS, AD & Farmland Preservation Trust
5. Page 4 of 10 - describing ways success will be measured - "consistency with other plans in Watauga County (Comprehensive Plan...)"
6. Page 5 of 10 - describing similar projects - "Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program"
7. Page 6 of 10 - among community needs the project will serve: "preservation of priority farmland" "affordability of farmland"
8. Page 7 of 10 - "Watauga County is developing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which includes the goal of preserving farmland. The project will coordinate with and support the Comprehensive Plan." (Zoning by any other name) Watauga County will have an opportunity to incorporate recommendations for land use guidelines to promote farmland preservation even as development occurs." (Zoning by any other name)
9. Project Partners: High Country Conservancy, New River Growers' Association, Watauga County Christmas Tree Growers' Association, Watauga County Cattleman's Association, Maverick Farms, ASU, USDA-NRCS and FSA
Mr. Chatham said he and David Harper, a land conservation consultant, Unique Places, wrote the $30,000 grant. David Harper was awarded $20,000 to write the plan, $1,000 to manage the project, and $2,000 to facilitate advisory committee meetings. There are 2 "community visioning meetings" costing $1,000/meeting; $2,500 for 100 copies of the report; $700 for "windshield surveys" and $1,000 for "food system and market research."
This is reminiscent of the $50,000 organic broccoli grant for the County where we got (1) a half-page report (2) the County had to retrieve 2 greenhouses used to grow ornamental flowers instead of broccoli plants; (3) the county had to retrieve a laptop computer used by an ASU student to produce anti-Afghanistan war flyers instead of tracking the broccoli project; and (3) where the consultant received most of the grant money from the tobacco foundation - all in the name of the farmer.
Editor:
At the final meeting for the Citizens' Comprehensive Plan, Brian Chatham, Soil and Water Conservation Technician, said we were not truthful in our letters to the editor. Chatham claimed the Farmland Protection Plan (FPP) was separate and had nothing to do with the Citizens' Comprehensive Plan. He emphasized the FPP had nothing to do with zoning. Calling us liars has long been the defense when we strike the truth. Our response to Mr. Chatham and the Planning Oversight Group can be confirmed by reading the grant application made for the FPP, which they call "Watauga Farming for the Future".
1. Project Title: Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan
2. Applicant: Watauga County
3. Contact: Brian Chatham, Soil Conservation Technician
4) Grantor: NCDA&CS, AD & Farmland Preservation Trust
5. Page 4 of 10 - describing ways success will be measured - "consistency with other plans in Watauga County (Comprehensive Plan...)"
6. Page 5 of 10 - describing similar projects - "Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program"
7. Page 6 of 10 - among community needs the project will serve: "preservation of priority farmland" "affordability of farmland"
8. Page 7 of 10 - "Watauga County is developing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which includes the goal of preserving farmland. The project will coordinate with and support the Comprehensive Plan." (Zoning by any other name) Watauga County will have an opportunity to incorporate recommendations for land use guidelines to promote farmland preservation even as development occurs." (Zoning by any other name)
9. Project Partners: High Country Conservancy, New River Growers' Association, Watauga County Christmas Tree Growers' Association, Watauga County Cattleman's Association, Maverick Farms, ASU, USDA-NRCS and FSA
Mr. Chatham said he and David Harper, a land conservation consultant, Unique Places, wrote the $30,000 grant. David Harper was awarded $20,000 to write the plan, $1,000 to manage the project, and $2,000 to facilitate advisory committee meetings. There are 2 "community visioning meetings" costing $1,000/meeting; $2,500 for 100 copies of the report; $700 for "windshield surveys" and $1,000 for "food system and market research."
This is reminiscent of the $50,000 organic broccoli grant for the County where we got (1) a half-page report (2) the County had to retrieve 2 greenhouses used to grow ornamental flowers instead of broccoli plants; (3) the county had to retrieve a laptop computer used by an ASU student to produce anti-Afghanistan war flyers instead of tracking the broccoli project; and (3) where the consultant received most of the grant money from the tobacco foundation - all in the name of the farmer.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Holder's and Obama's Hidden Agenda in Bringing Terrorists to N. Y.
The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments.
THE REAL AGENDA
THE REAL AGENDA
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Former President Bush Speaks at SMU
"I went against my free market instincts and approved a temporary government intervention to unfreeze the credit markets so that we could avoid a major global depression. As the world recovers we're going to face a temptation to replace the risk and reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control." - George W. Bush, Nov.13, 2009
I believe him. I don't put much stock in the view that the bailout was Bush's preferred policy. Many say it was a mistake but I don't know how they could know that. If you think that "abandoning free market instincts" is always too high a price to pay then I suppose that's valid but I can't say that without understanding that particular pinpointed crisis better than I do.
Bush's unwillingness to veto enabled too much spending. Passing the (what we thought at the time) huge omnibus bills also enabled the war to be funded by a Democrat controlled Congress. It was the price to pay. Too high? Maybe, but we had tons of money rolling in from his tax policy compared to now. Although, we didn't have much in the bank. That is a completely different issue than the bailout of banks. Still, it was bad and Bush deserves much of the heat he gets...but not all of it.
The "bailout" was administered horribly. Bush released the second half to Congress before Obama took the oath. Paulson was wishy-washy and had too much power. Strong arm tactics were used. Transparency was lacking. All that's true but, again, a separate issue from the decision to abandon "free market instincts".
I described the banking crisis as "pinpointed" because it is. The decision to spend that kind of money was a direct result of a crisis (or perceived crisis if you must) that the people we elected felt was dire enough to put "free market instincts" on hold. They might have been wrong but no one knows for sure. I don't doubt their intention which, as we know, means little.
Bush is right about the "temptation to replace the risk and reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control." That's why it's so important to keep the bailout tucked away in it's separate corner of the debate. That's why the argument that Bush was the one that started all this and therefore Obama has to follow Keynesian claptrap is bogus.
I believe him. I don't put much stock in the view that the bailout was Bush's preferred policy. Many say it was a mistake but I don't know how they could know that. If you think that "abandoning free market instincts" is always too high a price to pay then I suppose that's valid but I can't say that without understanding that particular pinpointed crisis better than I do.
Bush's unwillingness to veto enabled too much spending. Passing the (what we thought at the time) huge omnibus bills also enabled the war to be funded by a Democrat controlled Congress. It was the price to pay. Too high? Maybe, but we had tons of money rolling in from his tax policy compared to now. Although, we didn't have much in the bank. That is a completely different issue than the bailout of banks. Still, it was bad and Bush deserves much of the heat he gets...but not all of it.
The "bailout" was administered horribly. Bush released the second half to Congress before Obama took the oath. Paulson was wishy-washy and had too much power. Strong arm tactics were used. Transparency was lacking. All that's true but, again, a separate issue from the decision to abandon "free market instincts".
I described the banking crisis as "pinpointed" because it is. The decision to spend that kind of money was a direct result of a crisis (or perceived crisis if you must) that the people we elected felt was dire enough to put "free market instincts" on hold. They might have been wrong but no one knows for sure. I don't doubt their intention which, as we know, means little.
Bush is right about the "temptation to replace the risk and reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control." That's why it's so important to keep the bailout tucked away in it's separate corner of the debate. That's why the argument that Bush was the one that started all this and therefore Obama has to follow Keynesian claptrap is bogus.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammud Returns to Ground Zero
Charles Kruathammer tells it.
The lesser jihad comes to television. They're looking for a jury in New York City. What could go wrong?
Here are some of the nuts and bolts. The Wall Street Journal weighs in.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Did Bill Owens Really Win NY-23?
**UPDATE**
Hoffman is now (Monday, 11/16) a little over 2000 votes behind as the 10,000 military absentee ballots are beginning to be counted. The final results are expected Wednesday.
****
This is fascinating. Maybe I'm just naive in my partisanship but this begs the question: If the situation was reversed would Owens conceded as quickley as Hoffman did?
Hoffman is now (Monday, 11/16) a little over 2000 votes behind as the 10,000 military absentee ballots are beginning to be counted. The final results are expected Wednesday.
****
This is fascinating. Maybe I'm just naive in my partisanship but this begs the question: If the situation was reversed would Owens conceded as quickley as Hoffman did?
A Grieving Mother's Plea
Thank You Sarkazein for contributing this.
Even though Obama campaigned with righteous indignation regarding the war in Afghanistan he now dithers. Many bought the absurd illusion that he was a leader despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. The consequence is a more dangerous world and a military that is becoming more and more disillusioned as our President searches for a core belief.
I barely got through it. I like to think I'm a burly manly man but I cried like a baby for the mother, sister, wife, future child and our country.
Even though Obama campaigned with righteous indignation regarding the war in Afghanistan he now dithers. Many bought the absurd illusion that he was a leader despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. The consequence is a more dangerous world and a military that is becoming more and more disillusioned as our President searches for a core belief.
I barely got through it. I like to think I'm a burly manly man but I cried like a baby for the mother, sister, wife, future child and our country.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Pre 9/11 mentality Returns
This is very disturbing. The Wall Street Journal reports the FBI did not tell the Pentagon about Hasan's contacts with known radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. There is more to learn but it seems to me this has to mean that the Obama administration has proactively changed the Bush administration's policy. Did they rebuild Gorelick's wall? If so, what else has Obama done to sabotage our security? This is unacceptable. It's very hard not to jump to conclusions.
Veterans Day
If not for those who fought for our freedom, we would not have the privilege to freely express ourselves and debate openly.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
"Tea Baggers"
***UPDATE***
Four liberals who have previously expressed their distaste for ad hominem attacks have commented so far. None are bothered by this particular ad hominem attack on patriotic Americans by the President. None have given analogous examples from other Presidents. Stay tuned while we wait to be disproved about our belief that liberals are hypocrites.
***UPDATE***
"The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning." I asked for analogous examples from other Presidents. Add Bill Clinton to the list.
****
On a recent thread a commenter, "Bridle" said this: "When you use the phrase 'liberal sheep' you are resorting to argument ad hominem. It's one of those stupid sound bites that cut short any possibility of real debate." Another commenter, "Nobody" replied: "Be sure to take LPOV to task for the same thing! Know nothing, Grumpy Old Men, Tea Baggers, the list goes on....". "Bridle" did not reply.
The tea party protests during the summer of discontent were peaceful. When hundreds of thousands protested in Washington on September 12 there were no arrest. At the town hall meetings it was plain that the concerned citizens knew more than the politicians. They were well-informed and exercising their Constitutional right (if not duty) to peacefully assemble. That did not stop the politics of personal destruction from the fringe media and many Democrat politicians.
Now we are hearing about some of the Obama arm twisting that went on behind closed doors before the House vote on health care. "According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”
This is an astonishing look into the soul of the President. To him "anti-government" means "anti-Obama". It's one thing for pundits like George Stephanopoulos, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Anderson Cooper to use the very derogatory term but the President!? Well, I guess that's "change".
Here is the chance for the liberal commenters on this blog to denounce Obama's use of this term to describe anyone who disagrees with his views.
Four liberals who have previously expressed their distaste for ad hominem attacks have commented so far. None are bothered by this particular ad hominem attack on patriotic Americans by the President. None have given analogous examples from other Presidents. Stay tuned while we wait to be disproved about our belief that liberals are hypocrites.
***UPDATE***
"The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning." I asked for analogous examples from other Presidents. Add Bill Clinton to the list.
****
On a recent thread a commenter, "Bridle" said this: "When you use the phrase 'liberal sheep' you are resorting to argument ad hominem. It's one of those stupid sound bites that cut short any possibility of real debate." Another commenter, "Nobody" replied: "Be sure to take LPOV to task for the same thing! Know nothing, Grumpy Old Men, Tea Baggers, the list goes on....". "Bridle" did not reply.
The tea party protests during the summer of discontent were peaceful. When hundreds of thousands protested in Washington on September 12 there were no arrest. At the town hall meetings it was plain that the concerned citizens knew more than the politicians. They were well-informed and exercising their Constitutional right (if not duty) to peacefully assemble. That did not stop the politics of personal destruction from the fringe media and many Democrat politicians.
Now we are hearing about some of the Obama arm twisting that went on behind closed doors before the House vote on health care. "According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”
This is an astonishing look into the soul of the President. To him "anti-government" means "anti-Obama". It's one thing for pundits like George Stephanopoulos, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Anderson Cooper to use the very derogatory term but the President!? Well, I guess that's "change".
Here is the chance for the liberal commenters on this blog to denounce Obama's use of this term to describe anyone who disagrees with his views.
Iran Reject's Obama's Naive Overtures
The contrast in leadership could not be more stark between this post and the previous one.
The New York Times
The New York Times
Twenty Years Ago Today
Reagan's speech preceded the fall of the Berlin wall by two years, it still gives me chills. There are many excepts of the famous speech circulating today. If you're in a rush skip to 11:17 but do yourself a favor and make the time to watch the whole thing.
The Weed Patch
Let's try something new, an open thread. Here's your chance to bring up any topic you like (within reason). A few ideas to get you started: The world growing more dangerous while Nero fiddles, the deterioration of America's image that Obama has caused, the economy, 2010, the arrogance of climate change or anything else at all. We've got some deep thinkers (as well as liberals) here at AWC and if this works out we'll try to do it on a semi-regular basis. Have fun!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
A Salute to Strong Women
Alright, I'm going to go there. I wasn't until I read about the hero that shot the Fort Hood terrorist. Yall'll (is that a word?) probably think I'm nuts, if you don't already. Here goes: figuratively speaking women have cahones, men used to. I don't mean to disparage the brave and manly soldiers at Ft. Hood, they are awesome and the fact that a woman took out the killer is in all likelihood not relevant.
When it comes to politics, Republicans are obviously on the defensive due to their minority status. This fact in a politically correct world coupled with the chickification of men in the pop culture has made the strong, decisive without apology male a rare commodity. Republicans need a little backbone but that's dangerous because we don't want to be labeled as racist, sexist, bigot homophobes. God forbid we offend someone...anyone. Who are the voices on the right that tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may? Who is driving the debate? Who drives the left whacko? What politicians are saying the things that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney or even our own firecracker, Virginia Foxx are saying without apology?
Does it mean anything that women seem to be the ones taking the bull by the horns? Probably not but still...
When it comes to politics, Republicans are obviously on the defensive due to their minority status. This fact in a politically correct world coupled with the chickification of men in the pop culture has made the strong, decisive without apology male a rare commodity. Republicans need a little backbone but that's dangerous because we don't want to be labeled as racist, sexist, bigot homophobes. God forbid we offend someone...anyone. Who are the voices on the right that tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may? Who is driving the debate? Who drives the left whacko? What politicians are saying the things that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney or even our own firecracker, Virginia Foxx are saying without apology?
Does it mean anything that women seem to be the ones taking the bull by the horns? Probably not but still...
Lessons from Cambridge and Ft. Hood
This morning I listened to President Obama address the apparent terrorist massacre at Ft. Hood. When he said, “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts” I immediately thought of the Crowley/Gates incident at Cambridge. I went back and listened to President Obama's comments again. Here is some of what he said then. His comments then give us a glimpse of his world view. His statement was heavy on the evils of racial profiling. Here's the money quote, "That's why I think ugh the more that we're working with local law enforcement to um improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias ugh the safer everybody's going to be." Fast forward to the massacre at Fort Hood. I'll give the caveat too, we don't know all there is to know yet but we do know some. The killer was a disgruntled Muslim. He was being investigated as long as six months ago because he made comparisons between suicide bombers and soldiers on the internet. We know more as well. This from the AP and this from USA Today explain some of it and both are worth reading. Hindsight is indeed 20/20 but I think there is more at play. This should not have happened. This man should not have been allowed to remain in the Army. There were plenty of red flags and I believe the political correctness as espoused by Obama, regarding racial (or in this case religious) profiling and the Cambridge police, cost lives. It's just not acceptable to openly call into question the views of Muslims. Let me be clear (to borrow a phrase from our President) I AM NOT SAYING that Obama's policies or directives are in any way responsible. I am simply saying his world view on this is wrong.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
More Probing of the Liberal Psyche
Because a number of liberals comment on this blog, some of my posts have to do with trying to understand them. Liberals are clueless. How did they get that way?
The following article in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal is very insightful and although long, is well worth studying.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
The following article in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal is very insightful and although long, is well worth studying.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
House Republicans Release Substitute Amendment for Health Care Reform
Big Rally Today
Michelle Bachmann, Jon Voight and Mark Levin are hosting a rally in Washington today at noon. With the "Blue Dogs" quaking after the elections Tuesday the timing could not be better. I suspect that you won't see much about it in the fringe media and if you do it will be vastly understated.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Hottest Ticket in Political History
**UPDATE**
I was afraid it was too good to be true. The event has been canceled. The participants say it was over hyped. The overeager promoter billed it as a debate instead of a discussion. He advertised "The Hottest Ticket in Political History" (oops, I plead guilty to aiding that effort) and "a death-match faceoff between the men".
***
From "Politics Daily":
It's billed as "The Hottest Ticket in Political History:" A debate between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush at Radio City Music Hall. The event will happen in February as part of MSG Entertainment's third annual "Minds That Move The World" speakers series.
The former presidents will debate topics "ranging from the economy, to foreign policy, to the current administration." From the press release:
The series will be formatted to allow for President Clinton and President Bush to each present their thoughts on a wide range of important current events and national issues through a moderated question and answer period during which the moderator can elicit information and insights into particularly pertinent topics of the day.
It hasn't been announced who the moderator will be.
The ongoing series has hosted some prominent political names, but it's safe to say Clinton vs. Bush will be the biggest. Past events have pitted Ann Coulter against Bill Maher and Karl Rove against James Carville.
The public can suggest questions and debate topics at the MSG web site.
Tickets go on sale Sunday and range from $60 to $1,250.
I was afraid it was too good to be true. The event has been canceled. The participants say it was over hyped. The overeager promoter billed it as a debate instead of a discussion. He advertised "The Hottest Ticket in Political History" (oops, I plead guilty to aiding that effort) and "a death-match faceoff between the men".
***
From "Politics Daily":
It's billed as "The Hottest Ticket in Political History:" A debate between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush at Radio City Music Hall. The event will happen in February as part of MSG Entertainment's third annual "Minds That Move The World" speakers series.
The former presidents will debate topics "ranging from the economy, to foreign policy, to the current administration." From the press release:
The series will be formatted to allow for President Clinton and President Bush to each present their thoughts on a wide range of important current events and national issues through a moderated question and answer period during which the moderator can elicit information and insights into particularly pertinent topics of the day.
It hasn't been announced who the moderator will be.
The ongoing series has hosted some prominent political names, but it's safe to say Clinton vs. Bush will be the biggest. Past events have pitted Ann Coulter against Bill Maher and Karl Rove against James Carville.
The public can suggest questions and debate topics at the MSG web site.
Tickets go on sale Sunday and range from $60 to $1,250.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Bottom Line Reason to Support the GOP Even If You Don't Like Them
Excerpt from Chris Wallace's interview with Rush Limbaugh on last Sunday's Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Lucille Gallman sent this question: "Did you vote for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election?"
LIMBAUGH: I did.
WALLACE: Really?
LIMBAUGH: Of course.
WALLACE: But you've been so critical of John McCain.
LIMBAUGH: Yes, but you weigh the two. I don't think — there are a lot of people, Chris, that are saying there's no difference in two parties. I know a lot of people think that, and they're — and they really, really believe it.
But I don't know of any Republican who would try to take over one- sixth of the U.S. economy. I don't know one Republican who would put forth this — this irresponsible cap-and-trade bill. I don't know one Republican who would actually do that as something he initiated.
Complete Transcript
WALLACE: Lucille Gallman sent this question: "Did you vote for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election?"
LIMBAUGH: I did.
WALLACE: Really?
LIMBAUGH: Of course.
WALLACE: But you've been so critical of John McCain.
LIMBAUGH: Yes, but you weigh the two. I don't think — there are a lot of people, Chris, that are saying there's no difference in two parties. I know a lot of people think that, and they're — and they really, really believe it.
But I don't know of any Republican who would try to take over one- sixth of the U.S. economy. I don't know one Republican who would put forth this — this irresponsible cap-and-trade bill. I don't know one Republican who would actually do that as something he initiated.
Complete Transcript
Monday, November 2, 2009
What do NPR listeners think of Fox News?
NPR is conducting a survey on their news blog. The subject is the fight between the White House and Fox News. As of this writing there have been 1,362,903 votes cast. Any guesses as to how it's shaping up? Click here to find out.
Are the chickens coming home to roost?
**UPDATE**
Virginia goes red in what looks to be a landslide. Republicans swept the Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General races.
****
Christie beats Corzine in New Jersey!
****
The Democrat takes NY-23.
****
Tomorrow (Nov.3) is a big day. The race for Governors in New Jersey and Virginia along with the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional district will be decided.
In Virginia, a red State that turned blue for Obama, Republican Bob McDonnell has opened up a 13 point lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds.
It's a three way race in New Jersey, a notoriously blue State, between Democrat incumbent John Corzine, Republican Chris Christie and Independent Chris Daggett. President Obama has not sat on the sidelines for this one. Conventional wisdom said Daggett would help Corzine by taking votes from Christie but that doesn't seem to be the case. If Christie can pull this off it will be huge. I'm still skeptical... after all it is New Jersey.
Perhaps most interesting is the special election in NY-23 between Democrat Bill Owens and Independent Doug Hoffman. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, has withdrawn. She was chosen by the eleven Republican Party county chairs from her district. She is not Conservative but was supported by heavyweights like Newt Gingrich as a "big tent" Republican. It was thought she was the only kind of Republican that could win. Think Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins or Arlen Spector. Newt made the case that a vote for Hoffman (a true Conservative) would give the victory to Owens. Much like the tea party movement, there was a Conservative revolt and the floodgates opened when Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman. Now with conventional wisdom turned on its head Hoffman leads. Scozzafava (RINO) has since endorsed the Democrat Bill Owens while her campaign manager endorsed Hoffman.
Buckle up, this will be fun.
Virginia goes red in what looks to be a landslide. Republicans swept the Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General races.
****
Christie beats Corzine in New Jersey!
****
The Democrat takes NY-23.
****
Tomorrow (Nov.3) is a big day. The race for Governors in New Jersey and Virginia along with the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional district will be decided.
In Virginia, a red State that turned blue for Obama, Republican Bob McDonnell has opened up a 13 point lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds.
It's a three way race in New Jersey, a notoriously blue State, between Democrat incumbent John Corzine, Republican Chris Christie and Independent Chris Daggett. President Obama has not sat on the sidelines for this one. Conventional wisdom said Daggett would help Corzine by taking votes from Christie but that doesn't seem to be the case. If Christie can pull this off it will be huge. I'm still skeptical... after all it is New Jersey.
Perhaps most interesting is the special election in NY-23 between Democrat Bill Owens and Independent Doug Hoffman. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, has withdrawn. She was chosen by the eleven Republican Party county chairs from her district. She is not Conservative but was supported by heavyweights like Newt Gingrich as a "big tent" Republican. It was thought she was the only kind of Republican that could win. Think Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins or Arlen Spector. Newt made the case that a vote for Hoffman (a true Conservative) would give the victory to Owens. Much like the tea party movement, there was a Conservative revolt and the floodgates opened when Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman. Now with conventional wisdom turned on its head Hoffman leads. Scozzafava (RINO) has since endorsed the Democrat Bill Owens while her campaign manager endorsed Hoffman.
Buckle up, this will be fun.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Empty Words
President Obama on Oct.22, 2008:
“It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.”
During the campaign Afghanistan was framed as the “good war”. Iraq was an "illegal war" about daddy’s revenge, oil, money for Cheney’s buddies and cowboy diplomacy. Afghanistan, according to the liberals, was where we dropped the ball. Afghanistan, not Iraq, was where the terrorist plotted our demise. This was the “anti-Bush” position. It allowed the left to be viewed as hawks while criticizing Bush as a war-monger. The anti-Bush position was campaign rhetoric and nothing more.
The fringe (no longer mainstream) media dutifully went along by giving us a running tally of war deaths and even though we are loosing more soldiers in Afghanistan than at any time since the war began, that running tally has disappeared. Bush was criticized by the media for not allowing the caskets of fallen soldiers to be photographed. They accused him of hiding the cost of war. Obama changed the policy and now the media is no longer interested in taking the pictures. Obama is not complaining.
Now, while Obama dithers, the Taliban is emboldened, America is less safe, our soldiers are dying and the media doesn‘t care.
What has changed? The candidate who would take any position needed to win, won.
“It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.”
During the campaign Afghanistan was framed as the “good war”. Iraq was an "illegal war" about daddy’s revenge, oil, money for Cheney’s buddies and cowboy diplomacy. Afghanistan, according to the liberals, was where we dropped the ball. Afghanistan, not Iraq, was where the terrorist plotted our demise. This was the “anti-Bush” position. It allowed the left to be viewed as hawks while criticizing Bush as a war-monger. The anti-Bush position was campaign rhetoric and nothing more.
The fringe (no longer mainstream) media dutifully went along by giving us a running tally of war deaths and even though we are loosing more soldiers in Afghanistan than at any time since the war began, that running tally has disappeared. Bush was criticized by the media for not allowing the caskets of fallen soldiers to be photographed. They accused him of hiding the cost of war. Obama changed the policy and now the media is no longer interested in taking the pictures. Obama is not complaining.
Now, while Obama dithers, the Taliban is emboldened, America is less safe, our soldiers are dying and the media doesn‘t care.
What has changed? The candidate who would take any position needed to win, won.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)