patronus incognitus

2011-03-01T18:38:00.004-05:00

Long Time No Post

It's been a very strange winter for me. I have been politically apathetic of late. Not sure that's a good thing. I may come back soon and write about the day I was interviewed by Jay Carney, Obama's new press secretary.

Joe Cool in Afghanistan

2010-12-04T13:52:00.009-05:00

.
I happen to live a mile from the bridge that crosses into "Coast Guard City USA," Grand Haven, Michigan. Around here, we take the Coast Guard very seriously.
.
I could be wrong, but in this clip when Obama forgets to mention the Coast Guard, I see a moment in his eyes where he actually doesn't know if the person is serious. Then I see an awkward glimmer where it looks like he is going to make a joke to cover his error.

Looks like he held off a quip to say something like, "You guys know you don't really count. No, I'm just kidding. You're the first people we call if somebody's drowning in the gulf. Ha Ha. No I'm just kidding. You know I love you, man." And the voice in the crowd says, "I'm a woman, sir!" And Obama say, "Oh, that's even worse. Maybe we won't call you if someone is drowning. Ha Ha. No seriously, you know I'm kidding. We're glad you're here to. But seriously, folks, I didn't fly 7,000 miles just to joke with some girl in the Coast Guard...I came for a photo op so the folks back home will see how credible their Commander and Chief is..."

Thank heavens none of that happened. But the tone of the entire speech is so glib, so unpresidential, so "Joe Cool," so un-Reaganesque, that it is not hard to imagine him getting side tracked like that if his teleprompter had not kept him on track. Bet the guy who wrote his teleprompter notes and left out the Coast Guard got chewed out.

If the screen below does not work, you can watch the clip here:

8244

Common Sense from Teddy Roosevelt

2010-11-24T10:23:00.005-05:00

Exactly 100 years ago, in 1910, former president Teddy Roosevelt a year after leaving his eight years in the White House, gave a speech on citizenship in a republic. The speech is sometimes called "The Man in the Arena." As a college freshman, I memorized the most-quoted paragraph for a speech class. It reads as follows, but it is important to remember that these words were a SPEECH and not an editorial or written document. To fully understand the power of his words, it may help to listen to his voice on the brief video clip below.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Here are some unbelievably prophetic extended quotes from that 1910 "Citizenship in Democracy" speech:

On National Defense:
"There are well-meaning philosophers who declaim against the unrighteousness of war. They are right only if they lay all their emphasis upon the unrighteousness. War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is a war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this is whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is it right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be "Yes," whatever the cost. Every honorable effort should always be made to avoid war, just as every honorable effort should always be made by the individual in private life to keep out of a brawl, to keep out of trouble; but no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong."

On Definition of Marriage and Sanctity of Life:
The first essential in any civilization is that the man and women shall be father and mother of healthy children, so that the race shall increase and not decrease. If that is not so, if through no fault of the society there is failure to increase, it is a great misfortune. If the failure is due to the deliberate and willful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run Nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves from the thraldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done. No refinement of life, no delicacy of taste, no material progress, no sordid heaping up riches, no sensuous development of art and literature, can in any way compensate for the loss of the great fundamental virtues; and of these great fundamental virtues the greatest is the race's power to perpetuate the race.

On Not Being Swayed by Gifted Teleprompted Orators:
It is highly desirable that a leader of opinion in democracy should be able to state his views clearly and convincingly. But all that the oratory can do of value to the community is enable the man thus to explain himself; if it enables the orator to put false values on things, it merely makes him power for mischief. Some excellent public servants have not that gift at all, and must merely rely on their deeds to speak for them; and unless oratory does represent genuine conviction based on good common sense and able to be translated into efficient performance, then the better the oratory the greater the damage to the public it deceives. Indeed, it is a sign of marked political weakness in any commonwealth if the people tend to be carried away by mere oratory, if they tend to value words in and for themselves, as divorced from the deeds for which they are supposed to stand. The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety, and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them. To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic. [Wow! 2008]

On Individuals Doing Their Part for a Greater Good:
In short, the good citizen in a republic must realize that they ought to possess two sets of qualities, and that neither avails without the other. He must have those qualities which make for efficiency; and that he also must have those qualities which direct the efficiency into channels for the public good. He is useless if he is inefficient. There is nothing to be done with that type of citizen of whom all that can be said is that he is harmless. Virtue which is dependent upon a sluggish circulation is not impressive. There is little place in active life for the timid good man. The man who is saved by weakness from robust wickedness is likewise rendered immune from [more robust] virtues. The good citizen in a republic must first of all be able to hold his own. He is no good citizen unless he has the ability which will make him work hard and which at need will make him fight hard. The good citizen is not a good citizen unless he is an efficient citizen.

On Equality as an Ideal Not a Socialized Outcome:
Abraham Lincoln, a man of the plain people, blood of their blood, and bone of their bone, who all his life toiled and wrought and suffered for them, at the end died for them, who always strove to represent them, who would never tell an untruth to or for them, spoke of the doctrine of equality with his usual mixture of idealism and sound common sense. He said (I omit what was of merely local significance):
"I think the authors of the Declaration of Independence intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal--equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all -- constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and, even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, everywhere." [Abraham Lincoln]
To say that the thriftless, the lazy, the vicious, the incapable, ought to have reward given to those who are far-sighted, capable, and upright, is to say what is not true and cannot be true. Let us try to level up, but let us beware of the evil of leveling down. If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try and carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and those who do it. Let us, then, take into account the actual facts of life...."

On "One World" Government and Global Thinking:
I am no advocate of a foolish cosmopolitanism. I believe that a man must be a good patriot before he can be, and as the only possible way of being, a good citizen of the world. Experience teaches us that the average man who protests that his international feeling swamps his national feeling, that he does not care for his country because he cares so much for mankind, in actual practice proves himself the foe of mankind; that the man who says that he does not care to be a citizen of any one country, because he is the citizen of the world, is in fact usually and exceedingly undesirable citizen of whatever corner of the world he happens at the moment to be in. ... if a man can view his own country and all others countries from the same level with tepid indifference, it is wise to distrust him, just as it is wise to distrust the man who can take the same dispassionate view of his wife and mother. ...Now, this does not mean in the least that a man should not wish to good outside of his native land. On the contrary, just as I think that the man who loves his family is more apt to be a good neighbor than the man who does not, so I think that the most useful member of the family of nations is normally a strongly patriotic nation.

One hundred years later... we could use some of the common sense of Teddy Roosevelt!

The Only "Shovel-Ready" Job in America!

2010-11-16T22:51:00.005-05:00

Read full Story at CBS News. com.

At groundbreaking ceremony in Dallas for the George W. Bush Presidential Center today, former Vice President Dick Cheney said "history is beginning to come around" to a more positive view of former President George W. Bush.

Cheney said that Mr. Bush, whose approval rating upon leaving office was just 22 percent, always understood that "judgments are a little more measured" with the passage of time. He added that Americans "can tell a decent, goodhearted stand up guy when they see him."

Cheney lauded Mr. Bush as a president who refused "to put on airs," stating that he was thrilled to find that the most powerful person he knew was "among the least pretentious." He said Mr. Bush was someone who could "walk with kings, yet keep the common touch," added that "there were no affectations about him at all - he treats everyone as an equal."

He spoke admiringly of Mr. Bush's actions in the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, telling the former president that "because you were determined to throw back the enemy, we did not suffer another 9/11 or something even worse."

Cheney, who (unlike Mr. Bush) has been a vocal critic of President Obama, also took a shot at the current administration. Speaking of his expectation that construction would move quickly on the presidential center following the groundbreaking, Cheney quipped that "this may be the only shovel ready project in America." The reference was to the Obama-supported stimulus package that Republicans have criticized as ineffective.

8197

Bush eclipses Barack Obama

2010-11-14T22:39:00.005-05:00

The Decider returns to haunt Mr Nuance

Read the full article here.

The 43rd and 44th American presidents are a study in contrasts, but the link between them is symbiotic, argues Toby Harnden. There could have been no Obama without Bush, and only Obama's stumbles could have made Bush look good again so quickly.

Say what you like about former President George W. Bush, but his sense of timing is impeccable. Just after his successor Barack Obama took a self-described "shellacking" at the polls, Dubya was back, mocking the current occupant of the White House by his very presence.

For the 43rd President, the return must have been sweet....

During the 2008 election campaign, Obama slammed Bush at every turn. Since then, the 44th President has almost ceaselessly blamed his predecessor for everything, even stooping to lambast Karl Rove, Bush's long-time aide, by name during the recent mid-terms campaign.

But the anti-Bush shtick soon wore thin. Two years after Obama was anointed, the halo around his head seemed distinctly tarnished. In his post-defeat interview with 60 Minutes, Obama was at his most listless and meandering, projecting all the certainty of a Hamlet on the Potomac.

Right on cue, Bush entered, stage Right, clutching a copy of his 497-page memoir Decision Points, a tome full of breezy certainty.

Did he order the waterboarding of terrorist suspects? "Damn right."... Boring of Mr Nuance, Americans lapped it up.

Bush must know, however, that his steadfast refusal to make any comment at all about Obama's presidency stands in stark contrast to the derision he has received from his successor. He is self-aware enough to realize that his pithy, confident interview answers are sharply different from Obama's wordy circumlocutions. [End of abridged article]
8186

Amen! This book is on my Christmas list!

He is Still Running for President of the World

2010-11-07T06:45:00.001-05:00

.
Sunday Update: Here are confirming photos from day-one of his trip.

I've said it here before, but it bears repeating. Obama is not focused on making our country great again; he has his sights set on becoming some sort of new "global" president.

Tuesday's election results and Wednesday's press conference remove all doubt that OMBMA DOESN'T GET IT! It would be tempting to say his trip to India three days after his agenda was flushed down the toilet by the American people is further proof of his detachment, but it is actually confirmation of his attachment to "higher office" beyond our shores.

Read this article about Obama sending 34 war ships to India for his visit [later denied by the Pentagon]. What could possibly justify the 200 million dollars PER DAY that this weekend visit is costing U.S. taxpayers? I'm hoping that figure includes the cost of a mile-long bomb-proof tunnel the U.S. is constructing so Obama can drive safely to a museum. Why should we foot the bill as Obama continues to run for President of the World? Here is part of what that last link says:

A top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit has reckoned that a whopping $ 200 million...per day would be spent by various teams coming from the US in connection with Obama's two-day stay in the city.

"A huge amount of around $ 200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," the official said in Mumbai.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already in Mumbai for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

Unprecedented security has been put in place both in Mumbai and New delhi.
"We have never seen this sort of an entourage going with the president before. And I think this is an example the massive overspending that we've seen - not only just in the last 2 years, really in the last four," Bachmann said.
Asked for comment about Bachmann's criticism of the trip, the White House said in a written statement that the figures cited by the Republican lawmaker "have no basis in reality."

Considering the 34 warships and the largest entourage in presidential history, I would say the 200 million per day is accurate. Since when does the Obama Administration know the true cost of spending other people's money?

Compare this obscene show of power and excessive spending to the Prime Minister of England's trip to the U.S. last July.

David Cameron, returning last night from his first trip to the U.S. as British prime minister, took a business-class seat on board a scheduled British Airways flight.

Cameron, trying to cut Britain’s deficit, its largest since World War II, is scaling back on the chartered jets his predecessors used for overseas travel and told his staff to book him on regular flights. Yesterday he traveled to New York from Washington on Amtrak’s Acela train.

“We have got a lot of money to save,” the prime minister told ABC News July 20. “We’ve got a very big budget deficit, so we can’t go spending money on executive planes, sadly.”

While Cameron’s office estimates it is saving several hundred thousand pounds by forgoing chartered jets, that isn’t the only consideration. His party fought the May 6 general election arguing “We’re all in this together.”

Do you remember how harshly the Democrat Senators mocked the Detroit auto executives for flying private jets to the "bail-out" hearings in the senate? They rebuked the bonus-earning millionaires for "not getting it." They were right. I'm all for "security" for the POTUS, but the more we learn about this trip, the more absurd it becomes... until you remember that he is running for President of the World.
.

Pelosi Loses Gavel: The Best News of the Night!

2010-11-02T21:18:00.004-04:00

.
At least the best news as of 9:30 PM.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tonight rejected numerous polls predicting a Republican landslide among House candidates and defiantly predicted that Democrats will retain control of the House of Representatives."

"The early returns and overwhelming number of Democrats who are coming out – we're on pace to maintain a majority in the House of Representatives," Pelosi told reporters during a photo op in Washington."

She was wrong--but there's nothing new about that.

Another bit of good news is that Joe Manchin, the Democrat who had to ran against Obama and literally shot Obama's "Cap and Tax" bill, won a seat in the Senate. His victory speech sounded more like a small government Republican speech, and that does not bode well for Obama. That may be a Democrat win but it is not good news for the Obama agenda.

Marco Rubio in Florida has risen from nowhere to become an eloquent Reagan-like leader and speaker who, now hearing his victory speech, will have the Democrats running scared for years to come. This guy is presidential material. Maybe not in 2012, but watch this young leader. He exudes humble confidence and is a natural influencer and TRUST builder.

Dems Blue about a Red Mitten

2010-10-25T04:13:00.007-04:00

Former President Bill Clinton came to our fair state of Michigan yesterday to speak at a ralley in Detroit. Michigan is often referred to as a left-handed mitten. As such, Detroit is the second knuckle of the thumb. It's only a knuckle, but it's a big ol' swolen knuckle, infected by the woes of the auto industry and other problems. When that knuckle aches, the whole state aches.

Funny thing about that knuckle: its also the face of the state. When people think "Michigan," they typically see Detroit, even though the rest of the state looks nothing like it.

Michigan is mostly rural with forests and lakes and people who use guns for hunting furry critters in the woods and cornfields--not for shooting each other as is more true in Detroit.

Since Detroit is the big knuckle and the face of the state; and since the face is the front of the head; some folks think Michigan is full of knuckle-heads.

Bill Clinton must think so. He showed up in Detroit yesterday and stood in a two-thirds empty high school gymnasium downtown. He'd come to tell his shrinking fan-base how to vote next week.

The Democrats have known for decades that the Detroit vote dominates the entire state. They also know that if the Detroit vote is lethargic--and it is--the cast of characters in the rest of the rest of the state gets to be heard--the rest of the fingers in the mitten suddenly matter again. It's long overdue for the rest of those fingers to count. Based on this photo, it looks like at least one of them showed itself (...maybe it was the little finger where I live), and based on the article below, I think Lansing (and thereby the whole mitten) has a chance of going red!

Here is part of what the Detroit Free Press said:

“These other guys are playing you. They say they’re mad, they’re frustrated and want something new,” Clinton said. “But this country is coming back.”

Bernero was joined by all the other statewide candidates at the rally. Their message was clear -- don’t be discouraged by the polls that show them trailing Republicans.

“Are you ready to win, ready to fight, ready to vote?” Bernero asked the crowd.... “You have to remember the votes, because this election is up to you, not the editorial pages, or the pollsters, or pundits or prognosticators.”

While the crowd hoisted signs that stated “Virg Surge,” the turnout at the rally was anemic. More than 500 people came to the rally, but the gym at Renaissance High School was only about one-third full, even though Clinton used to command full houses wherever he went, especially in Detroit.

Politician after politician exhorted the crowd to not let the polls keep them from voting on Nov. 2.

“They think that if they tell you often enough that you’re not doing well that you won’t go to the polls,” U.S. Rep. John Conyers said. “But we’re not buying that malarkey. If Detroit turns out as it has in the past, we win.”

Without Detroit's vote, Michigan would not be "a blue state" for the Democrats who think votes can be bought with bail-outs and warn-out faces from the past. Looks like Clinton's got the blues. Maybe we're about to see a red.

Reagan Vs. Obama: The Great Debate

2010-10-17T16:39:00.006-04:00

.
The first presidential vote I cast was for Ronald Reagan back in 1980. I later got to meet Ronald and Nancy Reagan in person, and attended a small ralley with him when he ran for re-election in 1984.

I must admit that the past two years have been depressing times. I miss the sound of Reagan's voice. I miss the rock-solid principles and common sense he used prior to being in office and for the eight years he was our president. I wish the Reagan we remember could debate the Obama we now know. I hope the November mid-term elections take the wind from the "windy city" speech used in the clip below.

The times have changed; the issues have changed; but Reagan picked up the pieces after Carter, and I'm looking forward to the sense that our best mornings are not behind us.

It was that phrase that prompted the poem below which I wrote the day Reagan passed away.
.

Mourning in America

2010-10-17T16:34:00.003-04:00

June 11, 2004. The Funeral of President Ronald W. Reagan
.
"All we go down to the dust,"
his priestly friend intoned,
and the words echoed
in the stained glass silence.
Below him on the catafalque,
bound tight in stars and stripes,
was the wooden box
that throngs for days
had come to pay respect.

Outside (and all across the land)
that which tightly held our focus
waved slowly in the darkened noon,
never lower on the mast.
It, too, seemed somehow at a loss—
not knowing how to thank the man
who made it wave so proudly in his day—
and so felt all who lined the way
and watched him leave the towering spires
and pass forever
from his city shining on the hill.

Then in the West,
as if to claim the setting sun,
he came to rest upon a chosen rise
where were whispered last goodbyes
to him who kindly bid us all farewell
those many years ago.

The full weight of his absence
first hit me when we saw the empty mount
that bore his backward boots.
It was mourning in America...
draped not so much in sorrow
but belated gratitude.

Considering that President Bush's ( POTUS 43) second term is considered by many to be a continuation of the Reagan Revolution, I thought it might be appropriate to post something I wrote back in June.

President Reagan's death on Saturday, June 4, 2004, prompted a greater response from the public than even his greatest admirers would have predicted. After all, it had been a full decade since he had written his 1994 farewell letter to the nation informing us that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease which closed: "I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead."

The years passed by with little news of his status. He and Nancy lived those years quietly in their home in California's Simi Valley. He breathed his last in the room adjoining hers, and that private moment soon triggered a week of non-stop nostalgia and personal tribute to the man most credited for the collapse of the Soviet Union's Iron Curtain and the literal tearing down of the hated Berlin Wall. For the networks and cable news channels, it became a review of the 80's, which (thanks largely to the Clinton 90's) were remembered by many as the true apex of the waning 20th Century.

Reagan's last week in the news was the first memorable state funeral since JFK's, and there were many similar elements. The most obvious difference was that Kennedy's tragic assassination left the country reeling in disbelief and grief. Reagan's funeral was a celebration of sorts, a time when long-overdue tributes were shared-in some cases by partisans who never said a kind word about the 40th president while he led the nation into his "New Beginning." These same critics mocked Reagan's traditional values, flag-waving, and his Rockwellian ad campaign that proclaimed, "It's morning in America," (and continued running after his inauguration.)

The observances began in California at the Reagan Library, then on Wednesday moved east to the Capital via Air Force One. It was on this day that the horse-drawn caisson followed the empty-saddled horse that had Reagan's own riding boots in the stirrups. Friday, the last day of scheduled events, was a drizzle of sky and gray in D.C. The official service was held in the National Cathedral. One of the speakers chosen by Nancy to deliver a eulogy was former Senator John Danforth, who is also an Episcopal clergyman (and recently appointed US Ambassador to the U.N.). I heard his portion of the service live on the radio, and this opening line "All we go down to the dust" (which may have been original or liturgical) stuck with me through the day and came back to me when the casket was last seen in the glow of the setting California sun. See the images here.

I Hope This is Only the Beginning of Rahm's Nightmare

2010-10-13T20:29:00.001-04:00

Case in Point!

2010-10-07T06:48:00.003-04:00

.
Remember back when Obama was ramming his ill-conceived healthcare plan through congress and our senators and representatives were voting on things that they hadn't even read....and people like me and thousands of others were trying to point out the empty promises and the unintended consequences of saying "Obamacare won't affect anyone's current coverage"?

Well, a few weeks ago, Obama and company realized just one of the many flaws of imposing a socialized medicine program on a free-market society. It looks like even the White House had an epiphany on this topic. It might have gone something like this:

Oops! If we impose Obamacare on fast-food chains, the cost of a 95 cent hamburger is going to triple; if hamburgers prices triple, people will stop buying them; if people stop buying them, the franchise will close; if franchises close, people lose the jobs and health care they currently have; if people lose the jobs and healthcare they have, they go on the government dole; if they go on the government dole, the government gets even "more broke" than they are right now. Whose idea was this anyway? We'd better make an exception to our own rule before the November election or the voters will know we're idiots who ram-rod whatever Obama says even if we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Here's how the article read in USA Today:
McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."

The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000.

...McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver.

That Red Squiggly Line

2010-09-21T06:24:00.004-04:00

.
Everyone is talking about “the exhausted woman” from yesterday’s town-hall meeting. I did not watch the mid-day event, but this clip was all over the evening news. First of all, if the people who got to ask questions were not previously selected and screened that would be surprising indeed. Secondly, I will say that the president kept his cool. He answered this lady’s question and comment in typical bumbling, affable, Obama style and used it to launch a list of why her life is better than she thinks her “new reality” is.

But frankly, the lady’s phrasing and sincerity came across as much more real than Obama’s charm. This lady had no bone to pick with her president, you can tell it grieves her to say what she says to the man she voted for and believed in.

I can sympathize with her plight. I know people, including me, who are wondering about the new reality. The biggest difference between me and the exhausted woman is that I never bought the Obama “beans” in the first place. She's tired of defending him. I'm just tired of him.

I typed this first as a Word document with the spell-check feature turned on. For two years “spell-check” has been underlining the word Obama with a red, squiggly line as if something is wrong with it. I know I can tell spell-check to accept the word and add it to the dictionary—to quit telling me something is wrong with Obama—but I don’t. I like that red, squiggly line under his name. It’s my way of not adding this “new reality” to my life. If I have to live with the consequences of his actions, at least let me remember a time when even Microsoft Word had the sense to know something was wrong. I’ll keep the red, squiggly line under his name, thank you.

Now That I Can Understand!

2010-09-13T06:27:00.001-04:00

.
I love when students find effective ways to teach grown-ups.

Go to this link and listen to a student explain how meaningless are Obama's 100 million dollars in budget cuts that he mentioned in last week's stumbling press conference.

Double-click here to see the one minute 38 second lesson in economics that anyone can understand. How dare we add to our debt in light of this reality!
.

2010-08-22T09:59:00.003-04:00

I began writing this post from the hotel (now owned by a motel chain) that has become our home away from home whenever we visit our daughter Kim near Chicago's "Magnificant Mile."

Read on and I will attempt to do justice to an event that happened last night, a well-planned happening that prompted magnificant smiles and even some happy tears. Magnificant guy! Magnificant news! I know what you're thinking: "If this is what I think it is--what in the world were YOU doing there?" Good question, and the answer is part of why it was such a magnificant event.

Kim is a senior in college. This summer she stayed in Chicago to nanny for a family who attends Latin School, where she works during the school year. Her boyfriend Nate attends the same college and also works in the city. On August 2nd we were camping on the shore of Lake Michigan. We were sitting around a campfire when Nate called on my cellphone and asked if he could drive up from Chicago to visit with me about something. He stressed that Kim should not know he was coming up.

The next day, August 3rd, he drove up alone to meet me at the Starbucks in Grand Haven where we had a long talk. Actually, I mostly listened to his well-planned thoughts that culminated in his declaration of love, commitment, and request to marry my daughter. I assured him of my wife's and my permission and blessing, and then we had a long and pleasant talk about related things before joining the rest of my family (except Kim) for dinner at one of our favorite places nearby. It was great, and best of all, we managed to keep it all a secret from Kim (who called more than once while we were together)

About ten days later, Nate called again from Chicago asking if we could come down secretly on Friday to wait for them in Promontory Point Park along Lake Michigan (first photo above). It is a beautiful picnic setting with large limestone fire pits overlooking the lake.

We brought fire wood and all the goodies to enjoy it. Nate's plan was to propose to Kim at another park along the Chicago River where they have had many significant moments in the past, and then to bring her to our location. She of course thought we were home in Michigan so it was a great surprise that went without a hitch.

That second photo is them arriving shortly after six o'clock. After Nate had proposed and given her the beautiful ring. There was one minor glitch. After Kim said "Yes" she of course began calling family and friends. One of the first calls was to Nate's parents who are missionaries in Guatemala, nearly 2,000 miles away. That call went through fine. We knew Kim would also try to call us (on Julie's cell). That call was going to be my cue to light the fire. Unfortunately, our phones that were only a few miles away had no reception out on the point, so I never got my cue. When I saw them coming down the walkway, I began looking for the lighter. Never did find the lighter, but fortunately there was a nice homeless guy just down the lake a ways who had a lighter he was happy to loan me. I got the fire started, and after that the evening went perfectly as Nate had planned.

It was a great evening of celebration with friends (who later joined us for a cook-out). There is much more I could say all of this... about how happy Kim's two sisters are for her... about how happy Julie and I are for them...about how the fun will continue when Nate's mom flies in to visit over Labor Day... about how much we appreciate the way Nate included us from that first phone call while we sat around a campfire on the west shore of Lake Michigan to that second campfire on the east side of the lake...

But the thing we are most happy about is this young couple's commitment to begin thinking of life in terms of their future together; to see the path God has for them as shared; and to honor each other as they begin making the plans to walk that path together.

Of course, it doesn't hurt at all to see that Nate brings to Kim the very same squinty-eyed smile we have loved since she was a child.

7932

Funny Stuff!

2010-08-19T06:34:00.001-04:00

Here's to Dr. Charles Krauthammer

2010-08-17T07:24:00.002-04:00

.
A friend emailed this info to me yesterday. I SNOPED it, and found that it is cheezy summarization of that evening's remarks, but I've included the summary below unedited.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer
Born: March 13, 1950
Birthplace: New York City, New York
Raised in Montreal, Canada
Attended McGill University and Harvard Medical School
1972 diving accident left him a paraplegic - I have suspected this for a long time - ptf
Directed psychiatric research for the Carter administration
Began writing career in 1981 with The New Republic
Helped develop the "Reagan Doctrine" in the 80s
Appointed to Presidential Council on Bioethics in 2002

We see him on TV every weekday on the Fox news channel (not Channel 5) at 6:30pm. I didn't know he was an MD nor did I know he is paralyzed. He's quite a man.

Dr. Krauthammer is an M.D. and a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.

Last Monday was a profound evening, Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment.. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views . He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.

The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said!

Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask.The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton . He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada .
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world.. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.
8.. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future... We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have.. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package.These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.

To read Dr. Krauthammer in his own words. Go to the following:
Obama:The Grand Strategy
The Sting in Four Parts
The Obamaist Manifesto
7912

What Goes Around Comes Around...

2010-08-04T05:21:00.003-04:00

Before reading below, watch this video flashback of Maxine Waters saying "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" back in 1995.

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press

Mon Aug 2, 7:13 pm ET

WASHINGTON – California Democrat Maxine Waters faces a House trial this fall on three charges of ethical wrongdoing, setting the stage for a second election-season public airing of ethics problems for a longtime Democratic lawmaker.

The charges focus on whether Waters broke the rules in requesting federal help for a bank where her husband owned stock and had served on the board of directors. She denied the charges Monday.

The House ethics committee's announcement comes just days after it outlined 13 charges against Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., including failing to disclose assets and income, delayed payment of federal taxes and improper use of a subsidized New York apartment for his campaign office.

P.S. After a great race, my friend Bill Cooper did not win the Republican primary, but I will say that his run did prevent an ex-pro-football player from winning, thereby saving west Michigan from suffering from endless grid-iron metaphors and bull-headed jock talk for the next few years. That is our consolation prize.

Remember LBJ's Daisy Ad?

2010-07-22T07:20:00.001-04:00

.
Today our campaign is launching a TV commercial with the objective of encouraging voters to think about the importance of the decision we are facing on August 3rd, 2010.

The original daisy ad was very controversial because of its imagery and language. This ad borrows the edge from that ad but pretty much serves as a very valid warning about our national debt and Obama's spending spree. That's Bill's third daughter, Grace, in the film. We babysit for the three girls and she is a hoot, and I dare say better than the little girl in the original ad from 1964.

Here's what my friend, Bill Cooper, says about the ad on his web site.

In 1964, one of the most powerful political ads ever produced depicted a little girl in a field counting daisy petals. As the camera zoomed in, the reflection in her eye was that of an atomic bomb exploding. The ad was effective because during the Cold War, a nuclear holocaust with the Soviet Union was one of our greatest fears.

In 2010, we face a threat that has the potential to collapse our economy and cause the complete destruction of the free enterprise system. Our country is currently more than $13 trillion in debt, with more than $90 trillion of unfunded entitlements in the not so distant future. Our federal government has gone from spending 8% of GNP (Gross National Product) in 1913 to 44% in 2009, before the recent healthcare legislation was passed.

Does anyone really believe that the answer to reining in out-of-control federal spending is to send the same career politicians to Washington who have presided over the most poorly run state economy in the country?

Would it make sense to send a person whose resume consists of playing a game? [He's running against a former professional foot ball player and two career state politicians.]
Shouldn’t we elect the only candidate running in the 2nd Congressional District who has actually created jobs and is a proven and successful leader?

One difference between the business world and the political “Ruling Class,” is accountability. 90% of all businesses fail – 90% of all incumbent politicians are re-elected. In business you live with the consequences of every decision you make.

Making tough decisions and solving complex problems is critical to survival! Bill Cooper is the only candidate in the 2nd District with that type of experience.

A Spot of Tea, Anyone?

2010-07-19T00:51:00.002-04:00

.
I am not a member of the Tea Party because in fact no such "party" exists. It is instead a term that signifies a grass-roots groundswell against the ill-fated economic steps taken by President Obama (and those incumbents who followed his lead). Perhaps the best explanation of what the Tea Party is can be found in this article by Matthew Continetti June 28, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 39 The Weekly Standard.

Even without "joining" the local organization, I can appreciate the effects of Tea Party Momentum. I am pleased to say that a few weeks back, my friend Bill Cooper who is running for the U.S. Congress became the "Tea Party endorsed" candidate, which means he is the man who can do in Michigan what so many other non-politicians have done already in other states. Tea Party endorsed candidates have won something like five out of five major primaries nationwide thus far. Bill is happy to have earned their support. He is a hard-working, successful businessman with boundless energy. In addition to his run for office, he has also implemented an ingenious solution to help meet needs during these hard times.

So regardless of where you stand on the topic of "Tea Party," it's interesting to know that it is having a very real effect on this year's races. Continetti suggests that the Tea Party has two unofficial "founders": Glenn Beck and Rick Santelli. He also thinks that the future of the movement will fair better under the influence of the latter. It was the following moment that launched Santelli's common sense rocket into Obama's orbit.

7745

Governors Shaking in Their Boots

2010-07-12T07:28:00.003-04:00

about Obama's Arizona Law Suit

The New York Times, reporting on thie weekend's three-day Governor's Conference in Boston, says the topic not on the main agenda was on everybody's mind behind closed doors--esspecially the 19 Democrat governors who are either leaving office or trying to hold their office through the November elections: How can we defend Obama's law suit against a fellow governor when summaries of her law are forced to say stupid things like "the law makes it a crime to be an illigal immigrant"? Duh! Do Democrats not see the relationship between the words crime and illigal?

An excertp of the Times piece fowllows. Read the full article here.

The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.

Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around Ms. Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.

“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.

But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.

7710

How Dare an Administration...

2010-07-08T09:04:00.003-04:00

How dare a country that is on the road to bankruptcy, a congress that cannot live within its means, an administration who is clearly failing at economics.... How dare they talk about redistributing wealth until they understand how individual wealth (i.e. middle class sustainable income) is generated.

Remember when the controversial healthcare bill was approaching a vote? Remember how concerned Americans were calling it the first step toward the financially unsustainable "socialized" systems of Canada and Europe? Remember how President Obama assured the country that his plan would not affect the current system for those who prefer it? Remember how we all knew he was not telling the truth when he said we had enough money and doctors to take on 30 million uninsured people (including millions of illegal aliens whom he intends to make "legal")? Remember when Obama told Joe the Plumber it was time to "spread the wealth" in the form of redistribution? Remember conservatives pointing out that equalizing wealth is unconstitutional and not the role of government? Remember those who pointed out that equalizing healthcare does not mean making it excellent for everyone--it means making it mediocre for everyone and will eventually mean poorer care, longer lines, rationed services, quitting doctors and less people choosing to become doctors, higher taxes?

I remember that, too. Today, with no input from congress, officially made Donald Berwick his recess appointment to be the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. If only this guy would have been named and quoted before the vote... it never would have passed.

Healthcare is not a right; it is service. Rights are inherent and cannot be purchased or distributed like candy by those in power. Any nation that confuses true RIGHTs with purchased services is on the road to socialism and bankruptcy. Here's our new tour guide on that road.

BP CEO Sideshow

2010-06-17T11:53:00.004-04:00

I was just watching the live webcast of the testimony of Tony Hayward, Chairman of BP, before a congressional hearing.

Setting all other feelings about the spill aside, what a circus! Mr. Hayward barely got two words of his opening remarks out when some woman in the back row of the chamber stood up with a tar-like substance on her hands and face and started shouting something I couldn't understand but I’m sure will be put in sub-titles in subsequent media coverage.

If you look at the rest of the room as the gang of videographers scramble to get the shot of the woman being handcuffed, you’ll see that there are very few audience members in the room, which begs the question: how did this lady get through security looking like a tar-baby. If she put the substance on her hands and face after entering, what kind of security check lets a lady with a purse full of tar into the room?

I suspect the whole thing was scripted. Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan was chairing, and after the lady was hauled off by police, he simply said, “Please begin your remarks again. As you know emotions run high on this topic.” His demeanor made it sound like he was saying, “I hope you don’t mind that we asked that lady to go through that Aboriginal war dance, but we’re trying to up our ratings before the noon news break.” Immediately after the five minute opening remarks, Stupak gaveled to adjourn for lunch.

P.T. Barnum would probably suggest making better use of the clowns before breaking for intermission. We’ll see if the sideshow continues after lunch.

2010-06-13T06:49:00.003-04:00

Mr. President, Perhaps...
Your Kicking Foot Should Go Full Circle.

For several years, the Emerald Coast of the Panhandle has been our school's Senior Trip destination. Two weeks ago, we were there enjoying the white beaches of Destin, Florida.

No matter the size of the group we take each year, there are always two or three for whom it is the first time they have flown or the first time they have seen the ocean (we let them call the gulf the ocean in this case). It stands to reason that it is also the first time some of the seniors have seen dolphins and pelicans in the wild. (This picture is not from Destin. The oil booms were not yet in place when we were there.)

The day before we flew back to Michigan, one of our young ladies was trying to take a picture of a pelican in flight along the beach. I can't remember if she succeeded or not, but I know it would make her sick to see these pictures.

We live in that area of the gulf for just one week each year, I can only imagine how the people who for generations have lived there are feeling right now. Already their tourism has been decimated, their charter fishing boats docked by either mandate or lack of customers, and now their pelicans (which is the state bird of Louisiana) are being grounded by crude sludge and boxed up in crates for attempted rescue.

How could this happen? Look under any one of the sinks in your house, and you'll see a shut-off valve on both the hot and the cold water supply lines. Those valves are required by building codes for convenience and safety in the event that a leak occurs or a pipe breaks above that valve. If a leak occurs below that valve, there is a main shut-off valve in the basement of your house. If a leak occurs in the supply line to the house, there is an underground shut-off valve somewhere between your home and the street, and your area waterworks engineers know exactly where it is. Millions of homes across this country have at least three shut off valves between the street and the sink.

My point? If "code" requires so many shut-off valves for clean water, how in the world have we allowed an industry to have not one shut off valve in the thousands of giant man-made verticle pipelines capable of spewing millions of gallons per day into one of our treasured resources? Don't get me wrong. I'm not against oil or off-shore drilling any more than I'm against city water running to my house from the supply line near the street. I'm just flabbergasted that companies like BP are allowed to drill and install miles and miles of "plumbing" without a viable shut-off system, and I'm equally flabbergasted that President Obama has been so inept at helping SOLVE the problem BEFORE making enemies and criminals of those he's left in charge to fix it.

This underwater oil gusher is nearly 60 days old. For the first 50 days, our president was in damage control--unfortunately it had nothing to do with the gulf; he was controling the damage to himself. For weeks we heard nothing but blame and litigation and most recently threats for some a** kickin'.

Can you imagine the different treatment this news story would be getting if it had occurred under the previous administration's watch. Listen to this report on British television. The leak is dumping 40,000 barrels (not gallons) per day into the gulf. This may be BP's liability but its OUR PROBLEM. It's not the white cliffs of Dover, England, that are being ruined; it's our own shoreline. How could we as a nation be so ill prepared for this containment and clean-up process? This is a disaster that requires not a politician, not a lawyer, but a true leader. (Thank heavens we are learning this now and not during "World War".)

I think its time for the President's kicking foot to go full circle and find his own rear end.

In the meantime, it would be good for us to remember that we are allies with Britain. The U.S. will play the Brits in the World Cup Soccer match today. I have a feeling this British Petroleum mess will add some tension to that match. But I also sense that Obama has not liked the Brits for some time. Did you know that one of the first acts Obama performed upon moving into the White House was sending a bust of Winston Churchill back to England ? (It had been a gift from Tony Blair to our country.) I hope that the spirit of this old WWII song, will remind us of a far more desperate time when the Yanks and Brits banded together. The U.S. and English relationship continues to serve a much greater purpose. This is a time for team work not a reenactment of the Revolutionary War.

Dents in the Carpet (Revisited)

2010-06-10T07:03:00.002-04:00

.
In the days following Obama's election, I began a series of posts called "Dents in the Carpet."

Below, in brown text, are key thoughts from that initial post:

The Power of Status Quo
and Importance of Burden of Proof

On occasion it’s helpful to know a dead language, and most of us know a little Latin whether we think so or not. We all use the term status quo, which basically means “the way things are,” but it‘s often used negatively by advocates of change to mean “the way things have been for too long.”

I’ll begin with a simple example. How often do you rearrange the furniture in your most static room? [Static is a form of the word status and, in this usage, means the room that changes the least in your house, not the room with the most static electricity.] If you consider why you set that room up the way it is in the first place, you may find the reasons remain compelling through time. If you try to change things around, you may end up putting things right back where they were. (which is easy to do because of the dents in the carpet).

This is not always true, sometimes you can rearrange things in a room, step back, and really like it. [And you put ice chips in the carpet dents to help them bounce back overnight.]

The difference between men and women when it comes to rearranging furniture, is that (typically) men can live with the status quo of any room. They set up a TV room, for instance, and it can stay that way for all eternity....

Before getting off the couch to move it, men are far more likely to challenge the idea, because they understand that, while change is not wrong, the burden of proof rests firmly on those who which to change the status quo. Not only do women sometimes forget CHANGE bears the burden of proof, they seem to forget the fundamental rules of furniture inertia: the heavier the piece, the more indelible the dents, the less often it should be moved. Or as the Romans said in Latin, Quieta non movere, meaning "Do not move settled things."

In other words, it is safe to assume that there is a reason for the status quo and CHANGE has the burden of proof that it will indeed be better, if implemented, than the way things are. Some changes are good and long overdue, but this merely eases the burden of proof; it does not eliminate it.

This topic is far more important that this furniture example suggests. It becomes strategic in matters of law, morality, and politics....

Those were my thoughts a year and a half ago, and they still hold true today.

The only thing that has changed is that we now have more than 500 days of watching the Obama Moving Company attempting to rearrange the nations furniture--and in fact, they are trying to remove the carpet itself so we can't see the dents and forget how things once were for America. Not only is the carpet rolled up and sitting out on the curb, the curtains and upholstery are being replaced. In short, anything that represents the fabric of our lives seems to be fair game for being undone before Obama's era is brought to an end.

But a funny thing happened under the rolls of carpet and all the other things Obama hastily took to the curb. Under that pile of America as we know it, the grass began to feel the pressure, the grass began to feel like it was being robbed of sunshine, the green life in its cells began to fade to a pale yellow, and the grass roots said, "Wait a minute! This carpet and all the dents that remind us how things were before Obama took over don't belong out at the curb. It's still good carpet. We like the way things were before he tried to force his view of this world on the rest of us."

And to all the liberal Democrats surprise, the grass roots became so strong under those rolls of discarded Americana carpet that they pushed it up and let the winds unroll it for all to see, and passers by began to say, "Hey, I remember that carpet. I remember those dents. I remember how things used to be." And the people, beginning with the strength of those grass roots, began to rally together to put things back the way they were.

Here is an column from the Wall Street Journal, that articulates the beginning of the end of the Obama regime. I think it will help people understand why the Obama bell does not ring true. At first, millions of people liked the sound of his bell ringing and ringing throughout his meteoric rise to fame and the White House, but now folks from both sides of the aisle are seeing that the ring is hollow.

OPINION JUNE 9, 2010
The Alien in the White House
The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.

There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion.

Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric....They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

Read the full column here, and you'll see why I say that the grass roots are rising up to reinstall the best of America as we once knew it. The carpet will return to the rooms, the dents will be studied, and the many hasty changes will be reversed. Who knows, maybe we'll even ask our friends in England if the bust of Winston Churchill can be returned.
.

2010-06-08T17:04:00.001-04:00

Summary of Obama's Response
to Oil Disaster after 50 days...

"I said it before; I'll say it again: 'The buck stops with me...' where this oil stops is beyond me." T.K.

Evidently his idea of leadership and problem solving is knowing who to blame. This statement was said on the very same day he said to the high school students of Kalamazoo Central "Don't make excuses," but that speech just put one of the listeners to sleep.

Byron York's Tuesday article claims that the...

"Spill Reveals Obama's lack of executive experience"

"...perhaps candidates in future presidential races will think twice before arguing that running their campaign counts as executive experience.

"A few days before Obama won the White House, Bill Clinton joined him for a late-night rally in Kissimmee, Fla. Clinton, who became president after 12 years as a governor, told the crowd not to worry about Obama's lack of executive background. Given the brilliance of Obama's campaign, Clinton said -- and here the former president uncharacteristically mangled his words a bit -- a President Obama would be 'the chief executor of good intentions as president.'

"Chief executor of good intentions? Perhaps that's what Obama is now. But with oil gushing into the Gulf, that's just not good enough."
.

2010-06-05T03:29:00.010-04:00

The Wicked Witch of the White House
has overstayed her time in the Press Corps.
It's time to send Helen Thomas home.

This clip is from a blog called Yid with Lid, and that blogger's post begins with these words:

"Helen Thomas is as fair and open minded as she is good looking. The most Senior of White-House Correspondents has given up being a real reporter and instead spends her time spewing venom toward America's war on Terror and/or anything Israel does...."

Regardless of one's views on Isreal or their current conflict with Hamas, let's start with simple steps in the right direction. Like for instance: Hearst Newspapers needs to retire this 90-year-old Lebanese loose canon, Helen Thomas. Most of America is far more tired of seeing her at press conferences than she is of seeing Jews in their homeland of Israel.

UPDATE Friday, June 4, 2010: Helen Thomas issued the following statement today: “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

It is clear that she was speaking from her heart the first time (May 27, 2010) and from a boot in the butt the second time.

Update June 5, 2010: In the twenty-four hours after posting this call to sing "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead," the controversy has rightfully mounted. Like me, Former Press Secretary Ari Fleisher has called for Hearst to fire her. Let's face it; if she had said such a remark against African-Americans or Hispanics, the witch would be melting into the floor, but as we know there are two groups to which "hate speech" does not apply: Jews and Bible-believing Christians.

Charles Krauthammer's recent column summarizes the need for Israel's blockade and what's really behind the anti-Israel remarks of Helen Thomas and the rest of the Muslim-sympathizing world.

Why does it matter? Time will tell, but there is reason to believe that this "news" is old news and that the real scoop was written long ago.
7522

Hungry Even For Hair-Brained Ideas...

2010-06-02T06:13:00.006-04:00

Just Keep the Oil Off Our Shores!
.
A couple weeks ago, I mentioned that some farmers had a good idea of using tons of straw to sop up the spilled oil in the gulf. The advantage of that unusual idea was that the truckloads of messy straw could then theoretically be used as fuel. A few days after posting that clip, I was getting a haircut at Sports Clips and noticed a sign on the wall telling us that our hair on the floor was being sent to the gulf to help soak up the spill. Lots of hair salons and pet stores in the area are doing this. Here’s how the idea supposedly works.

Unfortunately (or perhaps wisely), the idea was rejected by BP.

Don’t get me wrong, BP may have many good reasons for not wanting to put tons of human hair stuffed into used panty hose into an already messed-up gulf. One reason that comes immediately to mind is that what do you do with the heavy, oily, stretchy hair-balls once you manage to pull them from the water? Unlike the straw idea, we certainly can’t burn these gloppy, gross string beans. Have you ever smelled burning hair. Yuk! This may very well be a matter of good intentions run amuck. It may be a hair-brained idea.

A new problem has resulted: After four weeks of good intentions, there are now warehouses all along the gulf stuffed full of these giant nylon-hair sausages.

Meanwhile, a west Michigan company just announced yesterday that it landed a bid to make 2,000 miles of standard “oil spill boom,” the yellow floating type we see on TV. The company hired 50 new employees in 24 hours and may need to hire 20 more. Two questions remain: will the standard “boom” work better than the miles of donated “hair sausages” that will not be used? And why in the world is a company just now getting the bid to make 2,000 miles of boom? Why did this not happen a month ago? Regardless of when or whether ever BP will stop this leak, one thing we have known for nearly 50 days is that we have a spill to contain.

Why wait a month to order the needed supplies? That is the part of this situation that, in my opinion, falls squarely at Obama’s feet. I wouldn't put it as bluntly as Dick Morris did, but I do think this will be Obama's "Katrina." If not, the media owes former President Bush a huge explanation for why they were harder on him during a much more complicated crisis (involving hundreds of thousands of evacuated victims) than they have yet been on Obama during this gulf spill disaster.
7497
This is a time for "We the People"
Not "Me the President"

Here’s what CNN reports that director Spike Lee said about his man Obama:

In the weeks since an oil rig exploded and later sank into the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama has dealt with the tragedy with his signature cool, calm and collected approach. But with the oil still gushing in what is now the worst spill in U.S. history and the environmental devastation coming ashore, the president is becoming a target of the anger that was originally directed only at BP.

"One time, go off!" director Spike Lee urged on CNN's "AC 360°." "If there's any one time to go off, this is it, because this is a disaster."

Lee's sentiment echoes the frustration of people who want to see Obama get loud, take charge and inspire them like he did during his presidential run.

Recalling then-candidate Obama's ability to rouse crowds into chants of "Yes, we can," presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said, "There was a feeling he was going to be one of these presidents that moved us with words the way John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did in recent decades."

Instead, Obama has presented himself as the unflappable president, with the engineer-like approach of Jimmy Carter and the legislative astuteness of Lyndon Johnson, Brinkley said.”

Spike, if Obama "goes off," he will simply look like a spoiled child and not a man in charge. Here’s why: Reagan spoke from his heart with core values shared by his fellow American’s. Obama is “Joe Cool.” Remember this skit about how cool he is? Reagan, on the other hand, reminded millions that our country is about “We the People” while Obama campainged as “Me the President” and failed to deliver.

2010-05-30T20:51:00.001-04:00

According to one of Obama's judicial nominees...
If you enjoy commiting murder
and can calmly talk about those you've committed,
you should be held less responsible for them.
Hmmmm...

2010-05-29T14:09:00.006-04:00

Words...Words...Words!
What have you BEEN DOING since April 20, Mr. President?
No one cares so much how you FEEL about this disaster;
The story about your daughter is cute, but it seems like you are only now seeing the scope of this problem.
Admitting now that the buck stops with you, does not explain what you've been doing with the buck for over 40 days.
If this had been Bush, he would have been condemned by Hollywood and every network after five days!

.
Update: Added May 31.
.
Here's what Peggy Noonan has to say about it:

In his news conference Thursday, President Obama made his position no better. He attempted to act out passionate engagement through the use of heightened language—"catastrophe," etc.—but repeatedly took refuge in factual minutiae. His staff probably thought this demonstrated his command of even the most obscure facts. Instead it made him seem like someone who won't see the big picture. ... his strategic problem was that he'd already lost the battle. If the well was plugged tomorrow, the damage will already have been done.

The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. ...

I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable....
...
Remarkable too is the way both BP and the government, 40 days in, continue to act shocked, shocked that an accident like this could have happened. If you're drilling for oil in the deep sea, of course something terrible can happen, so you have a plan on what to do when it does.
How could there not have been a plan? How could it all be so ad hoc, so inadequate, so embarrassing? ...

What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama's standing with Democrats. They don't love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. ...The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president's Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.

The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration, and that is no cause for joy. It's not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort. It is not good for the stability of the world, or its safety, that the leader of "the indispensable nation" be so weakened.
7480

2010-05-27T12:31:00.004-04:00

Obama Has Been "on top of this"

Since Day One... Yea, Right

Listen to it at this link. It proves what I said a few posts back that the press has put more effort into keeping Obama "clean" than he has in the gulf. He has neglected his duties in the gulf disaster. For five weeks, he has done everything BUT what is expected of him by law under these circumstances, and the press has not once read him the "instruction manual" found at this link. Obama is so afraid of this becoming "his mess" that Press Secretary Mark Gibbs actually called a special meeting with the White House Press Corp and scolded them for asking too many questions about the spill.
.

For those readers who know where I am right now, I wanted to add this first-hand account about the oil spill in the gulf.

We have been on the beaches in Destin's Emerald Coast (Florida Panhandle) since Saturday. We are now heading home. The weather has been great. The beaches are beautiful. The dolphins are as playful as ever. Blue Claw Crabs are still very sporting during night-time hunts. No sign of the oil spill here--yet!

One hundred miles to the south and west of us, however, in the most southern and eastward tips of the state of Louisiana, the oil is beginning to wash up on shore. Our taxi driver at the airport was from Louisiana, and he is heartsick about this. In our daily travels we pass BP gas stations that have no customers. I have heard nothing of an official "boycott," but it seems to be happening quite naturally, and my guess is it will continue until this mess is cleaned up.

Cities all along the coast are living on pins and needles. The sad fact is, there has been so much hype about the potential contamination of these beaches that thousands of tourists are canceling their plans every week. In other words, the financial impact of this floating river of crude has already begun even if it never makes actual contact with the coast.

Even James Carville is blasting Obama's bungling of this disaster. After five weeks, Obama still can't do anything more than get angry and demand that the hole be plugged. Oh, that he were this slow about all forms of government intervention.
7457

I Support the Arizona Law--and I've Read It!

2010-05-24T15:40:00.007-04:00

I have been reading about the new Arizona law for weeks. Now I've read it. Duh!

This is a no brainer. It is absurd to oppose it. One article I read last week criticized the law for "criminalizing illegal immigration." Think about those three words. That would be like wanting to take a law off the books for "making it illegal to enter someone else's home unlawfully."

Here's what the article said: "The proposal would make Arizona the only state to criminalize the presence of illegal immigrants through an expansion of its trespassing law. It also would require police to try to determine people's immigration status when there's reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally. An estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants live in the state."

First of all, I suspect the 460,000 number is very low. The reaction to the law would hint that some know the number is much higher. And let's face it, we know when you include all of the border states from Texas to California, the number is in the tens of millions. If a state with nearly half-a-million illigal immigrants wants to start solving the problem one crime at a time, what right has any other state or the White House to stop them. Ignoring the law is not evidence of compassion. If it were, then why not let them steal a car while they're at it. If what they are stealing is based on need, that would be just as "compassionate" as letting them steal citizenship or residence. This is not about compassion ; it's about fiscal responsibility and national security.

Like many of you, I have traveled abroad. I never go anywhere without my papers. If for some reason I would have been caught in the country of the Neatherlands, or Jordan, or Isreal, or Japan, or Thailand without my passport, I would have been held and in a world of hurt. Goodness, we can't even get back into the U.S. from Canada anymore without a passport. Show me the country on this globe that does not have such laws AND ENFORCE THEM, and I'll show you a country at risk of gradual take-over. I am against profiling and prejudice but we must enforce our borders!

Let's imagine there was a concert at the State Fair. Patrons paid their $28 at the gate and got a wrist band to get in. Now let's say that some folks found a way to crawl under the far tent wall. This law would be like saying that State Fair security is allowed to ask to see wrist bands and escort those out who didn't pay to get in. Like I said: it's a no brainer.

Here's an even better example: Let's say there was a State Dinner at the White House and two people who weren't invited just decided to show up anyway. This law would be like asking people for some proof of invitation since their names are not on the list. Surely even the President understands the need to enforce such things. Or does he?

Seventy percent of U.S. citizens on both sides of the political aisle AGREE with this law. I think that number will grow inspite of the hype against it.

There is only one logical explanation for why Obama's folks and so many liberals are using hateful language and positioning themselves to be opposed to Arizona's enforcement of the law. They plan to let those illegals cut to the front of the line, let them tap the Community Chest, and get one "Get Out of Jail" card so the Dems can monopolize the fastest growing voter block in over half of these United States.

Yes, Sir. I have a funny feeling that millions of wrist bands are already being printed to hand out at that gap under the far tent wall.
7437

Al Gore: Bore Me More Until I Snore

2010-05-19T00:03:00.007-04:00

.
At the end of this Al-Gore-bore-me-more-until-I-snore speech, he says that the next generation will ask this one question, "What were you thinking?" I would suggest that some more pertinent questions were rumbling under the mortarboards that day, such as: "Why did we invite this guy to speak at our commencement?" and "Can you believe this guy was almost elected president? Thank God for hanging chads." and "Thanks for the optimism, Mr. Gore. Where can we buy tickets to the next Jim Jone's Kool Aid Reunion?"

I am a huge supporter of being good stewards of God's creation, and I would agree that we have often failed to clean up our own mess as guests on His earth. Likewise, I'm not suggesting that there are not plenty of strange things happening in the world today as if we are witnessing some epic storyline in need of redemption.

I'm only saying that the cult Gore seems to be leading has it wrong. The worsening state of global political-economic affairs are the result of man's doing, but most of the natural geological and /or geo-thermal affects (many of which are in dispute) are not caused by man--nor will the solution come from man. Gore and his comrades have given man the lead role in this story because it gives them political power. Oil spills are one thing--they are preventable, and we must learn from this fiasco in the gulf.

On the other hand, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, volcanoes, and yes even lightening-caused forest fires are not preventable. The increase in these things is not news to many people who understand History. Has Gore attempted to assess the pollution from the recent mile-high plume of ash and smoke from Iceland and compare it to the coal plants of the U.S.? I doubt it, because there is no political power gained from knowing that natural occurrences such as volcanoes or forest fires probably out-pollute in days what collective man-made sources do in years. Gore is determined to write his own storyline, one in which the cause of our woes is greedy capitalists so that he gets to be the grand oracle (while at the same time investing his personal capital in the new economy he hopes to impose on the world).

I could be wrong, but I suspect this goes beyond economics. Whether they understand their role in History or not, it's possible that Gore and company insist that man is the cause of the problem so that man (or a man) can be the solution. Paving the way for a man-centered solution to our ills seems crucial to the man-centric theology of this political-economic movement. This worldview is based as much on science fiction as it is true science. This theology does not require the good news (or Gospel) but the rather "bad news" according to Gore, as preached at the University of Tennessee this past weekend.

Most of geo-thermal conditions Gore blames on mankind can be neither caused, controlled, nor corrected by man, and yet he continues to act as if man is the center of everything on earth. I wonder why? Who is being left out of this picture? That is much more likely to be the question we will all be asked to answer in the future.
7413

Will the "Quicker Picker-upper" Please Begin!

2010-05-14T00:03:00.003-04:00

.
I have not posted anything here for nearly a month. Those of you who share my political leanings probably know why. I think we are in the first wave of "Obama recovery mode." We are beyond the shock and awe of his agenda approaching like a swarm of bees; we have now been stung multiple times and are waiting for the swelling to go down. Waiting to see how the mess plays out.

While I wait, I am thinking about the oil spill in the Gulf. In a few weeks, my wife and I (and our school's Senior Class) will be on the shores of what is called The Emerald Coast in the Panhandle of Florida. The waters there are beautiful. I hope they look like this when our plane approaches. So far reports indicate that the spill is still far from where we will be, but as you can imagine, it has been on our minds. Some cartoonists forecast the worst case scenario.

One thing we know for sure is that no matter how badly Obama's administration bungles the oil spill, the media will blame everyone but him. They all jumped on the anti-Bush bandwagon after Hurricane Katrina, but in this case Obama will be portrayed as the Bounty "quicker-picker-upper" no matter how long it takes. I have a feeling the real "clean-up" award will go to the media for coming to Obama's aid.

On a more serious note... it was refreshing to see these good ol' boys making a simple hayseed suggestion to the press. I think they should run some more experiments. Make sure they've covered their bases (for instance, you might want to use salt water in the experiment and see if it works as well), but they might just be onto something here.

7388

2010-04-19T00:03:00.008-04:00

Obama Demands

US flag NOT be Flown in Haiti

Many other countries have come to the aid of Haiti, but none come close to the the U.S. Humanitarian Assistance to Haiti for the Earthquake: $179,883,065. (Double-click to read cartoon.)

Other countries are proud to fly their flags over the various temporary bases of support in Haiti. It is a common way of identifying participating countries, but not us... not under this president.

I'm not trying to sound like I'm screaming at a Tea Party, because (up to this point) I am merely an observer of that interesting grass-roots phenomenon. I guess, I would simply agree with the familiar voice below when just two years ago, she so passionately defended the rights of people like those at Tea Party rallies to strongly disagree with the Obama administration's actions.

7314

"Teeth Make a Bad Filter for Lies" Part II

2010-03-23T18:08:00.011-04:00

.
In the Friday, March 19, post below, I said, "No matter how many times someone lies through their teeth, the lie is still a lie; teeth make a very bad filter."

I am not one to use the word "lie" casually. I have friends who use it more freely than I do. If someone says, "I'll be there at 7:00," and the person shows up at 7:02, they might call that a lie since the original statement ended up being untrue. I don't use the word lie that way. Doing so is inflammatory and, depending on the circumstances, it could either harm the relationship or heighten the burden of proof required to end it.

To me a lie must be either a deliberate falsehood or such a pathological pattern of reckless statements that it becomes clear the speaker only means what he/she says for a matter of minutes and has no remorse when his/her actions belie what was said. For instance, when someone says something to sway people (to win their vote or loyalty or affection or money) with no intention of actually doing what they say, that is a person who uses empty promises as a stratagem, that's a person who lies. Once it is clear that a person is in the habit of manipulating people with words, the "L" word applies.

· That's why in the post below, I call it a lie when 219 Democrat representatives promise that adding health care coverage to 30,000,000 people will save taxpayer money rather than spend money we don't have and drive the nation deeper in debt.
· I consider it a lie when they claim that savings will come from cuts they don't yet have the nerve to make or from prosecuted "fraud" that they have not yet bothered to expose and prosecute. (They did not need this bill to begin enforcing the law.)
· I call it a lie when they say this new policy will not affect the vast majority of Americans who currently have health care. Insurance is a "risk club" everybody pays into it knowing they will either get care or "peace of mind," but when a law changes the rules of the "risk club" it will indeed change either the cost or the benefits. The 75% of Americans who were happy with their coverage, will indeed be affected as explained in this column by Patrick McIlheran. [link added 3-25-10]
· Along with Joe Wilson, I call it a lie when we are told the new healthcare will not benefit unregistered illegal aliens (The statement is only true if Obama succeeds in registering all illegal aliens. Joe Wilson's outburst was based not on the word "unregistered" but on the fact that he knew currently illegal aliens, who pay no taxes or premiums, will indeed get this new entitlement program once they "register" to receive it.)

Tom, shouldn't you wait and see if the above promises are broken before you call them lies? Perhaps, but I'm basing my predictions on past patterns. Does this president casually make promises he does not keep? Does he say things to please crowds and then forget he said them? If that happens once, it could be called a mistake. When it happens deliberately again and again, I call it something else.

Listen to the clip below, and you decide.

Is it a lie when we are promised open proceedings and no "secret deals" when in fact the only way the ponzy health-sham bill passed was through secret deals for democrats and their thug allies like the SEIU? Is it a lie when candidate Obama promises we will give citizens FIVE DAYS to read any bill on his desk before he signs it, but then as president he signs the most partisan, underhanded bill in history the day after his henchmen hand it to him?

Why does that matter, Tom? Isn't that kind of a 7:00/7:02 distinction (to use the example from your opening paragraphs)?

No. This is a huge difference. As you listen to the opening line of his remarks on the Youtube clip below, he is talking about "sunshine being the best disinfectant." Had the kept the promise he makes a minute later, everything we are learning this week about the bill would have been exposed in the five days BEFORE he signed it into law on Saturday morning, but instead it was forced through in one weekend (the first weekend of March Madness) and then it was hastily signed into law and applicable to some businesses the next day . All of this happened BEFORE the media and voters could really study it and digest the insider pay-offs and "slick" timing of the way the bill postpones all of the tough decisions until after the 2012 election (when I hope a different president will attempt to repeal it). By then, reversing this disasterous entitlement will be like pushing toothpaste back in the tube-- with a toothpick! That is why the broken five-day promise matters.

So much for sunshine being the best disinfectant.

Listen to what he says at 1:10 mark. The crowd cheers; Obama nods sincerely; but he evidently had no intention of remembering the line once it swayed the crowd. What do you call that? I'll say it again: "No matter how many times someone lies through their teeth, the lie is still a lie; teeth make a very bad filter... even when the teeth are in an Obama smile or a Pelosi horse laugh."

At the end of the clip, he reassures his cheering fans that the openness of the process he promises will be so "...you can decide if your representatives are representing you." But two years later, he twisted the arms of a dozen or more reps to go against the will of their constituents so he could further force this country into financial ruin while buying the future votes of an additional 30,000,000 cradle-to-grave Democrat entitlement recipients.

Look at the radical political past of the people who made this bad legislation. This isn’t about charity; it’s about power. [Case in point: acts of charity are not "a big f***ing deal" as Biden whispered to Obama before he signed the bill--that vulgarity reflects not charity but the unfiltered hubris of power.]

This sweeping bill is not about constructive change within a form of government; it’s a step by step take-over to a different form of government. And if it fails? If it leads to financial ruin? Even that will serve someone's purpose, for it will be from that desperate, fallen state that a weak and needy population will be all the more eager to follow "the one" who can save the day. Behind all such epic power struggles are two essential sets of characters: inspiring ego-centric leaders who make false promises and the gullible masses who believe them.

7200
Updates:
Kevin O'Brien column: "It's Far From Over."

Joe Conason is an example of what I mean by "the gullible masses who believe them." If he is right, if the caution I lay out in this post is wrong, I will be happy. But I think he is either gullible and blind to the pattern of lies and consequences...or he is merely among those willing to say anything to bring about the disastrous change.

Advice on how to RESPOND to this bad bill, and I do believe the secret of repeeling it will be in a proper response--not the "REACTIONS" we are seeing in some cases.

Teeth Make a Bad Filter for Lies

2010-03-23T06:07:00.000-04:00

Originally posted Friday, March 19, 2010,
before the vote that will live in infamy
.
When I was a little kid, my mom sometimes served Jell-O at the end of a meal. I'm not talking about some fancy congealed salad with floating fruit; I mean just plain Jell-O, stirred in a bowl, put in the fridge, and served from the same bowl like ice-cream.

It was fun food for many reasons, but perhaps the most disgusting thing I used to do with Jell-O was this: I'd fill my mouth with it, close my lips, and begin sucking it through my teeth, gradually breaking the wiggly substance down until it was a liquid. Then I'd swish the lumpy Kool-Aid around like mouthwash until there was nothing left to do with it but swallow. It tasted good. It was still Jell-O, just liquefied by passing through my teeth. If I had spit it out in a juice glass, however, no on in their right mind would drink the Kool-Aid—not even me!

Sometimes politicians do this same thing with unbelievable LIES. They know the truth is going to be hard to swallow so they all collectively decide to LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH, hoping the LIE will become something they can pass off as Kool-Aid to the gullible people who think big government is the answer to our problems. Don't drink the Kool-Aid, America!

No matter how many times someone lies through their teeth, the lie is still a lie; teeth make a very bad filter.

Is there any thinking American who can read the following quotation (in the context of everything we know about the past seventy years of Democrat tax-and-spend-entitlement programs) and not have that alarm go off in their mind, that alarm that lets us know when we are hearing a lie?

"Pelosi said a House vote may come as early as March 21 on legislation that President Barack Obama and Democrats say will cover 32 million uninsured Americans, curb medical costs and reduce the federal budget deficit." [Full article here.]

Obama campaigned on "Change We Can Believe In," but I refuse to believe a bold-faced lie no matter how many Democrat teeth attempt to filter it! They have been swishing the same lies through their chops for a year. It's now like luke-warm liquefied Jell-O, but when they spit it out into the congressional juice glasses this Sunday and tell the "no votes" to drink the Kool-Aid, I hope the needed majority picks up the glass, looks at the bits of gross stuff floating in it from all the people who were bought off, and has the guts to slosh it back in their faces.
7169

The Healthcare Tragedy

2010-03-22T00:08:00.001-04:00

A friend of mine is running for congress. If elected, he will fill Congressman Pete Hoekstra's office.

Here's a picture of him and his family. My daughter's babysit his daughters who attend our school. The two oldest girls were flower girls in my daughter's wedding. (Seen in the sixth photo of this post.)

Here is what Bill said about yesterday's decision before it passed by the narrowest of margins. (If just four of the Democrats who swore they would not vote for the bill until the language was added to ensure no federal funding of abortion had kept their spine and promise, it would not have passed.)

On the Issues: The Healthcare Tragedy

The Problem: As I write this email [sent Sunday], the Congress of the United States, elected by you and me, is preparing to vote on a bill that if passed will be a national tragedy.

This bill will not reduce costs, improve the health care system or reduce our deficit. When has the federal government ever operated more effectively and efficiently than individuals making their own decisions in free and open markets? What this bill will do is place more of our individual healthcare decisions and our lives in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

Wherever there is an industry or business that is inefficient ... you'll find a business or industry with government fingerprints all over it. Government-created monopolies, government-created regulation, government-created tax policy, set-asides or subsidies are what renders capitalism ineffective.

The freedoms endowed to us by our Creator and protected by our Constitution are slowly and methodically being taken from us. This is being accomplished almost voluntarily, without a single shot ever being fired.Through the proposed healthcare legislation, our elected officials are attempting to control an ever-larger percent of our economy.

In 1910 our government consumed about 8% of GNP (Gross National Product); in 2009 it was 44% of GNP. If the majority in Congress is successful this weekend, it will almost certainly exceed 50% of GNP. All of the wealth that politicians fight over the redistribution of in Lansing and Washington D.C. was created by the free enterprise system. We are now dangerously close to destroying the very system that has made America great.

The Solution: Successful business owners are inherently leaders; leadership is not simply self-proclaimed.We need to elect leaders who have experience creating jobs, prosperity, successful businesses and strong economies. Business owners are forced to live with the consequences of their actions on a daily basis. Business owners must make critical decisions everyday in order to survive in a world that has a 90% failure rate. Conversely, politicians live in a world where more than 90% of all incumbents continue to get re-elected. Over-spending and career politicians have gotten us into the horrible mess that we are in. More spending and career politicians are not the answer to getting us out of it.

Who should you support? Only one candidate...

Has a proven track record of success in the private sector, creating several different businesses and hundreds of West Michigan jobs over 25 years
Has successfully met 1,300 consecutive payrolls
Has been an Entrepreneur of the Year finalist with four different companies
Has proven he is a fiscal conservative with his actions, not just words That candidate is Bill Cooper.

Probed by a Preposition

2010-03-11T19:52:00.011-05:00

.
This is what I meant when I said the Democrats are not doing this FOR America--they're doing it TO America.
.

At the heart of this issue is not only a political division and policy/process disagreements; there is a simple but crucial PHILOSOPHICAL difference between the ideologues pushing this reform and the majority of Americans who are firmly against it. Many of the people against it don't even know why they feel in their gut that it will be a disaster, but I believe the reason rests in this basic question:

What is a RIGHT? Nancy Pelosi has said she will not stop until we remove all doubt that health care is a right and not a privilege (quote is at the 1.30 mark of that clip). Obama himself has said the same. When asked by Tom Brokaw in a Presidential Debate in the fall of 2008, "Is health care a privilege a right or a responsibility?” Obama said "In a nation as wealthy as ours it should be a right."

Noting could be further from the truth. Rights have nothing to do with wealth. In fact, things based upon wealth (purchasing power), by definition, are privileges not rights. If it takes money to make something a reality, that thing is not a right. True RIGHTS are inherent and equally held by all.

It is only when a culture has lost its way in the big unfolding epic drama of life that they fear death and disease and believe that somehow wealth or status can banish it from a nation or a select citizenship. That will never happen no matter how much money we throw at it, but if we falsely call health care a RIGHT, liberals can take all manner of liberties in forcing upon their subjects. Health care is a privilege. Call it what it is. And when we can afford to extend some form of it to as many people as possible, regardless of their wealth, we could as a nation choose to distribute it to those who do not have it by charging those who do. But if we do that, let's call it what it is: redistribution of wealth, or socialism. That is not a swear word; it's a world view. If that's what the nation wants to do, let's talk about it in proper terms. But when you call goods and services that require wealth to purchase a RIGHT, you are beginning the debate on a false premise. If it requires money, it is not a RIGHT.

I used to teach English literature, and our 9th Grade text included Edgar Allan Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death," a story about some revelers at a rich man's home enjoying a masquerade ball while the world around them, beyond the walled estate, perished in a plague called the red death. I won't tell you how the story ends, but I will say it is a useful metaphor of a nation that believes health care is the shared RIGHT of defeating death and disease by pouring untold billions of dollars on them.

I'm not suggesting that it is wrong to try to cure the brokenness of our world; I'm not saying it's wrong to use wealth in that struggle; I'm suggesting the fact that it requires wealth proves it is a privilege not a RIGHT. When a nation mistakenly confuses PRIVILEGES with RIGHTS they are foolishly willing to go deep in debt to ensure they are equally shared (since they are "a wealthy nation"). But actually they cannot afford spread such privilege, so to pretend they can afford it; they borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from a nation like China, a nation that knows health care is not a RIGHT. How do they know this? Because there are more people in China without access to basic medical needs (who do not live within 200 miles of a hospital) than the entire population of United States of America. How arrogant is it for the "wealthy" to proclaim healthcare as a basic human RIGHT while they are indebted to nations whose people don't even have it as a privilege? As the U.S. becomes biggest moocher (taking on debts we can never pay back) in the history of the world, it cannot afford to begin making up RIGHTS that never existed.

No thank you, Pelosi and company, I content with the RIGHTS this nation was founded upon. Those are timeless RIGHTS; they existed millennia before we did as a nation; they have been denied and gained by countless tribes and nations through the centuries; but never were they purchased with mere money. The defining aspects of items most worthy of the Bill of Rights is that they do not come with a bill. They may require blood and sweat and tears to defend, but they do not require wealth or its redistribution to be equally held by all.

While looking for the Pelosi quote link, I found this. My thoughts were written before seeing it on TV or Youtube, but it does support my thoughts and is said with more authority from the judge.

If the Democrats continue to force this misguided legislation in crevasses where it's not welcome, if they keep probing with the prepostion and insist on doing things TO us whether we want it or not, the voters will kick and kick hard in November.

Here is what Pat Caddell of the Washington Post says about it.

Why the Mainstream Network News is Dead?

2010-02-24T00:40:00.018-05:00

.
Updated: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, see below:
Because they have lost the nerve-endings in their probative fingers; they have lost sight in the corner of their eye and can see only what is straight ahead on the presidential podium; their ears hear only certain voices in certain moments (and don't hold those voices accountable when the tables turn); and their collective conscience has been seared by repeatedly ignoring the high-minded hypocrisy of the hands that feed them.

I doubt the networks will show any of these clips of their learned Democrat talking heads in the senate. Like liberals, the network news has a short attention span, but on Tuesday when "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) seemed particularly irked by the question about "reconciliation," they should have laughed in his face when he said abruptly.

"... I have been told that my Republican friends are lamenting reconciliation. I would recommend to them to go back and look at history. Since 1981, reconciliation has been used 21 times—the vast majority of those reconciliation efforts have been by Republicans. So ... they should stop crying about reconciliation."

After laughing, the reporters should have said, "Well, if they are crying about it, they are doing so much quieter than you and your peers did just a few years ago." Here are clips of the Dems crying about the dangers of passing any bill with only a 51% vote, and I might add, making a pretty good case about the founding father's intent, which they are now eager to ignore.

If the Liberals choose to force Obamacare through with a mere 51% vote (with what they dubbed "the nuclear option" five years ago) when only 25% of the voters want it, they will stir a revolution unlike anything seen in 200 years. The vote would be like a spoiled child deliberately spilling a box of BBs because they know it will be impossible to pick all of them up. It will be like that same child spilling grape juice on the flag, setting a stain in the fabric of the Republic just to watch the new Republican majority in 2010 try to get the stain out. Such an act of desperation will be done TO America not FOR America.
7055
UPDATE: And one week later my post is proven by Matt Lauer. Listen to this so-called news man get the facts wrong on many accounts. Matt filled that same seat in front of the camera when all of the above statements were made, and yet his short term memory (AKA deliberate revision of history) allows him to act as it the term "Nuclear Option" was recently coined by Republicans and to act as if none of the key leaders from Obama to Clinton to Reid to Dodd to Schumer were not making strong arguments against this "undemocratic" process. Click on the link below to see for yourself if my take on this situation one week ago was correct:

Matt Lauer Lobs Soft-Ball of Non-News to DNC Chair and follows up with White House Talking Points as if the above statements were never made by Democrats.

Nor do I think the puppet news sources will provide the following clips in this the same week that Obama plans to pass his unpopular government take-over with a mere 51% partisan vote, thereby fulfilling his own prophesy: HE CAN'T GOVERN!.

7093

And the Beat Goes On...

2010-02-22T06:30:00.001-05:00

"Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings."

"It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion. Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," said Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, "Science is a complicated game..."

Read the full article here.

And if you're new to this blog, read the related posts below.

2010-02-15T07:42:00.003-05:00

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995: Read the whole article here:

I like penguins almost as much as polar bears do (although I understand they prefer baby sea lions and seals). But really now! Have you ever seen so many penguins coming from Hollywood in all your life as you have in the past ten years? From documentaries to feature animated films, the happy feet of penguins are marching in lock-step for the cause. The same over-exposure has been given to polar bears. So much so that I've suspected for some time that the two main "human" causes of melting polar ice caps (if any) has been (A) all the lime light shining on penguins and polar bears and (B) all the hot air coming from Al Gore.

I wrote on this topic in a post about Wigley and Wang a while back. This more recent article says:

"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made."

Now that the spotlight is off the polar bears and on the scientists who have been cooking the global-warming books, perhaps we can begin redirecting mankind's desire for restoration toward restoring a proper relationship between creatures and the Creator.

6999

2010-02-14T00:01:00.001-05:00

Wigley Wang Inadequacies
Shortcomings Exposed
as Missing Measurements Leak
[re-dated from 2-3-10 to put in sequence with above posts]
Tom Wigley, the former director of the climatic research unit (CRU), is very troubled over news of leaked emails about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Wei-Chyung Wang 's work. "Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper based on the flawed data was published. In one email Wigley asks incredulously, 'Were you taking [Wang] on trust? Why, why, why did you and [Wang] not simply say this right at the start?'"

"…a senior colleague told him he feared that … Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up". But the CRU still claims that the “revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change…”

"In an interview with the Observer on Sunday, Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, warned of the danger of a public backlash against mainstream climate science over claims that scientists manipulated data."

"The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU).… only 10 had been released in full.

“A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents … has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.”

Accusations have been made “by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study….”

In the absence of hard facts, it’s no wonder Wigley is disappointed by Wang’s missing measurements and alleged manipulation of data. Had these inadequacies not leaked the study may have held water for those pushing the global warming agenda.

True Story....Read the full article in the Guardian here.
and Here is another article about the melt-down of global warming.
6912

Yes! I Do.

2010-02-09T05:52:00.003-05:00

.
This is a real billboard in Minnesota. I have traveled that stretch of I-35 back our Iowa days. So far, according to news sources, the source of the sign are unknown. I can assure you it is not President Bush who has been extremely gracious in his silence for over a year.

I hope I'm wrong, tut I do beleive the sign will have greater significance in the days ahead. But even at the simplest level of meaning... YES, I do miss President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

.
The white house handling of terrorists and national security has come across as a "Let's be freinds" campaign to those who wish to do us harm, and their hatred for America has not weakened with this weakened approach from Obama.

2010-02-08T05:20:00.007-05:00

Tough Interview...Tough Lady... Tough Road Ahead.
She may not be presidential, but she's nobody's Fool

Follow up Wednesday, February 10, 2010:
Evidently there was a lot of flap about the fact that during a Q&A time after her keynote speech in Nashville Saturday night, she glanced at six words of "notes" she had on her hand. Having used "hand notes" during speeches myself, let me add that there are no rules against notes. It wasn't as if she were cheating on a test. Did it look good when she glanced at her hand? No, but where is the same criticism when Obama uses teleprompters to speak to elementary students in a library. Or pronounces the word "corpsman" (as in CORE-mun) as corPSman just last week. This article makes an interesting point about that and other observations regarding Sarah Palin's continued rise in credibility despite the continued attacks.

Note to Governor Palin: If it's wrong from Rham to use the "R" word, it is equally wrong for Rush. The reason you were tempted to give Rush a pass is because he has been in your corner on a number of occasions. Your mistake was calling for a resignation over the use of an offensive word. That is why you and your vocal friend were temporarily at odds on the issue. What you should have said about Rham is something based on principle and not "word police policy".... something like, "You know, it is from the heart that the mouths speaks. Rham is just showing us what kind of man he is on the inside." That principle is true on both sides of the aisle and it is true for talk shows and White house advisors, though I will admit the bar should be higher the closer one is to power and the presidency.
6959

2010-01-31T10:56:00.002-05:00

Huffington is Synonymous with Hypocrisy

When All That's Left is Arrogance

2010-01-27T22:41:00.011-05:00

After sitting through tonight's charade, I'm pleased to announce that my television screen is not broken. I didn't throw anything at it, but never have I found myself more in "town-hall" mode--blurting out my incredulity each time his nose rose in the air. Never has a more pompous air accompanied such pedestrian words. He has squandered his charm; the cool is gone; all that's left is arrogance.

I simply don't believe half the things he says. I don't trust his statistics, his projections, his rhetoric. Some of it was downright laughable. When he said the bit about the overwhelming scientific proof of global warming, the chamber snickered from both sides of the aisle.

We all recall it was Congressman Joe Wilson who got himself in trouble last time by shouting "You lie!" when the president assured the America that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for his government-run healthcare. In Obama's mind he wasn't lying because he knew his intentions were to declare "illegals" legal, making his statement true. But Wilson was spot on in the sense that, if Obama gets his way, millions of people who will not have paid a dime into the government program will be able to tap it just like tax-paying American citizens.

Tonight's speech was peppered with so many "You lie" moments that even Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito mouthed "Not true" when the president accused the court of "selling out" our election process last week. ("I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests..." except of course the labor unions and billionaires like George Soros.) See the moment below. Many news sources pointed out the slo-mo incident. Now let's see if they do their homework and determine who is telling the truth, Justice Alito or Obama? My money is on Alito (seen at left of screen).

Some of the initial press on the subject, points out that the president's arrogance led to the moment with Alito. The "snob" poster at the top of the post is no fluke. Obama has struck that pose more than any man I've ever seen. He did it as he took the podium tonight and looked down on all of his fawning fellow democrats (who he hopes are willing to fall on the sword for his agenda).

This was not a State of the Union Address; it was a STATE OF DENIAL address (as this cartoon suggests). It was a rehashed campaign speech. Obama sees himself as the answer to our problems. And none of the problems we face were caused by liberal ideas run amuck. He thinks that if he continues to restate his hollow ideas and empty promises that the bandwagon will keep rolling behind him. It won't, Mr. President. That sound you hear behind you is not a bandwagon; it's a steamroller. I think you'll understand next November.

6820

(Some of the supportive links above were added the evening after this was oringinally posted.)

This Could Be the Start of Something Big!

2010-01-22T05:27:00.012-05:00

.
If you'd like to listen to music while you read, click the arrow to hear Count Basie version of our title song, and then read on as it plays.

If there is one thing both major parties should have learned from experience by now it is not to "over-reach" the natural pendulum swing of American politics. The Republicans will need to remember this between now and November but especially in these delicious days of Democratic "melt down" drizzled on a scoop of Obama Neapolitan "please all please none" ice cream. Eat slowly; relish each nuance; and don't do the same stupid thing yourselves before November.

What was so encouraging to me about the peoples' usurpation of the self-perpetuating, 50-year "Kennedy Seat" with Scott Brown was that it seemed to come from nowhere.

The Democrats thought they were pulling America along on a big-government bandwagon tied to the rope of liberalism. They kept pulling the rope, but didn't realize the wagon had stopped several steps behind them. What they were pulling was not a rope; it was actually a huge rubber band and Tuesday it had done all the stretching it could stand before pulling back so hard it left the tone-deaf Democratic majority looking up at the sky wondering what hit 'em.

Some foolish liberals think Brown's win means the progressives did not pull the rubber band hard enough or fast enough. Let them think that; let them keep pulling a nation where it doesn't want to go--their rubber band will snap along with their future in politics or punditry.

In the meantime, enjoy a couple editorials and political cartoons. The first (in purple) is Peggy Noonan, a writer I had admired since her time with Reagan, but who frankly seemed to be sipping the Obama Kool-aid for about a year. I guess that's why her thoughts should get Obama's attention. The second (in blue) is from Mort Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S.News & World Report. [The cartoons are signed by their artists. Double-click to enlarge.]

"It is not the end of something so much as the beginning of something. Ted Kennedy took his era with him. But what has begun is something new and potentially promising.

"President Obama carried Massachusetts by 26 points on Nov. 4, 2008. Fifteen months later, on Jan. 19, 2010, the eve of the first anniversary of his inauguration, his party's candidate lost Massachusetts by five points. That's a 31-point shift. Mr. Obama won Virginia by six points in 2008. A year later, on Nov. 2, 2009, his party's candidate for governor lost by 18 points—a 25 point shift. Mr. Obama won New Jersey in 2008 by 16 points. In 2009 his party's incumbent governor lost re-election by four points—a 20-point shift.

"In each race, the president's party lost independent voters, who in 2008 voted like Democrats and in 2010 voted like Republicans.

"Is it a backlash? It seems cooler than that, a considered and considerable rejection that appears to be signaling a conservative resurgence based on issues and policies, most obviously opposition to increased government spending, fear of higher taxes, and rejection of the idea that expansion of government can or will solve our economic challenges...." Peggy Noonan

**************

The Incredible Deflation of Barack Obama

“The first trouble is that his gift for inspiration aroused expectations, stoked to unprecedented heights by his own staff, that he would solve the climate crisis on Monday, the jobs crisis on Tuesday, the financial crisis on Wednesday, the education crisis on Thursday, Afghanistan on Friday, Iraq on Saturday, and rest on Sunday....

"Perhaps the inevitable outcome was disappointment—and on this Obama has not disappointed. Alas, he has accelerated the deflation of hope with his extraordinary volume of public appearances. In his first six months, he gave three times as many interviews as George W. Bush, four times as many prime-time news conferences as Bill Clinton, and more interviews than both combined: 93 for Obama and 61 for his two immediate predecessors. He appeared on five Sunday talk shows on the same morning, followed the next day by David Letterman, the first-ever presidential appearance on a nighttime comedy show. In another week, he squeezed in addresses to the U.S. Climate Change Summit, the U.N. General Assembly, the U.N. Security Council, and a variety of press conferences. [In case you happened to miss the nation's introduction to "Pants on the Ground."]

"His promiscuity on TV has made him seem as if he is still a candidate instead of president and commander in chief. He—and his advisers—have failed to appreciate that national TV speeches are best reserved for those moments when the country faces a major crisis or a war. Now he faces the iron law of diminishing novelty.

"Despite this apparent accessibility, Obama's reliance on a teleprompter for flawless delivery made for boring and unemotional TV, compounding his cerebral and unemotional style. He has seemed not close but distant, not engaged but detached. Is it any wonder that the mystique of his presidency has eroded so that fewer people have listened to each successive foray?

"Poor results. But Obama's problems are more than a question of style. There is doubt aroused on substance. He sets deadlines and then lets too many pass. He announces a strategic review of Afghanistan, describing it as "a war of necessity," only to become less sure to the point that he didn't even seem committed to the policy that he finally announced. As for changing politics in Washington, he assigned the drafting of central legislative programs not to cabinet departments or White House staff but to the Democratic congressional leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the very people so mistrusted by the public...." Mortimer Zuckerman
6757
This Just in: If you wonder what a melt down looks like behind closed doors, Check out this clever parady that puts words in a disappointed dictator's mouth. [This video has over 1,500,000 hits in the first two days!]

The above parady is a must see laugh, but below are links to weekend op-ed pieces that underscore the significance of this week's special election:

Michael Goodwin of the New York Post: "Just as Dorothy and Toto exposed the ordinary man behind the curtain in "The Wizard of Oz," the voters in Massachusetts revealed that, in this White House, there is no there there. It's all smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles, held together with glib talk, Chicago politics and an audacious sense of entitlement. At the center is a young and talented celebrity whose worldview, we now know, is an incoherent jumble of poses and big-government instincts. His self-aggrandizing ambition exceeds his ability by so much that he is making a mess of everything he touches."

Nolan Finley of the Detroit News: "Obama's response to the Democrat's Bay State rebuke was to grab a pitchfork and try to elbow to the head of the mob. It's the greedy bankers you're angry with and not me, he insisted, vowing to renew his war on Wall Street with a vengeful vigor. It would be easy to assign his denial to tone deafness. It goes beyond that. It's a stubborn resistance to recognize that America doesn't want to go where he's trying to lead it. Obama is still taking his counsel from the leftist ideologues who are telling him that the trouble isn't that he's too liberal, but not liberal enough."

SHERMAN FREDERICK of the Las Vegas Review Journal:
Earth to Obama Nation... Pride goes before a fall "The night after ... Obama told ABC News that ... it was really the same voter anger that swept him into office a year ago that also swept Brown into office Tuesday. What, seriously? Voters so loved Obama they gave Massachusetts a Republican? Of all the perverted takeaways from Tuesday, that's the doozy of the bunch. But apparently this kind of weird delusion is consistent with the unbounded hubris of Team Obama.White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel blamed the loss on Coakley running a lousy race. Obama's trusted strategist David Axelrod said it was "local issues" -- not the Obama agenda -- that really drove the Brown win. Hello? Earth to the White House. The reason Republicans prevailed three times -- twice in traditional Democratic strongholds -- in the past 12 months is because the White House, with (I am sad to say) the help of Nevada's own Sen. Harry Reid, miscalculated the ache in the American voter for believable leadership. Instead of living up to their historic campaign, they engaged in a garden-variety reign of arrogance marked by business-as-usual politics, broken promises and back-room deals. Together -- Obama and Reid -- they failed to learn that the end doesn't justify the means...."

And George Will gives some advice in "Mandate to Moderate" that I hope team Obama is slow to grasp. I hope the liberals convice him to keep pushing his Big Government agenda (aka "socialism-light") so the people can keep throwing it back in their faces, allowing this new wave of awakened Americans to keep growing through the November elections.

2010-01-19T21:14:00.003-05:00

Update on post below!

For some reason, my news channel of choice was not coming in when the Brown Smack-down of the Democratic candidate started pouring in. So I did something that I can barely stomach doing...I watched MSNBC during the Rachel Maddow hour. It has been highly entertaining to watch this delusional liberal try to spin the grassroots landslide and signal to the Dems in D.C. Oh, how I hope all the Democrats listen to Maddow and continue thinking as foolishly as she does. She doesn't get it. She does not see what this race means. Sure the candidate made some missteps, but it is her liberal agenda that the people rejected. The White House is already throwing her under the bus, but I dare say Obama's visit Sunday actually cost her more votes. The liberal talking heads don't get it, and I hope they are slow learners. Thank you Massachusetts for reclaiming of the people's Senate seat that had been blindly entrusted to Ted Kennedy since Scott Brown was three years old. I don't know who Scott Brown is, but I love what has happened in the Liberal Bay State Bastion tonight!

Listen to this clip and see how the president spins the outcome. "The same thing that swept Brown into office is what swept me into office...." No, Mr. President, what swept Brown into office is the fact that America is rejecting the force-fed BIG GOVERNMENT you brought to town a year ago. Maybe Brown will derail the train carrying Obama's healthcare suppository.
.

2010-01-17T23:59:00.004-05:00

I Love an UPSET

If you're like me you didn't know who Scott Brown was a month ago, but this video link was almost as uplifting as the brilliant turning of the tides depicted in the post below this one. A year ago, I wrote a post called "Dents in the Carpet," and Senate-hopeful Brown represents that kind of "lets remember where to put the furniture back" that I was talking about. I hope Obama's attempt to help her is as successful as his pitch for Chicago to get the Olympics.

Even before the heckling started, Obama was at a loss for words to say in support of this losing candidate. Watch through to the end below.

2010-01-15T14:49:00.004-05:00

Perhaps the most inspiring Youtube minute
I have ever experienced
is the last half of this clip.

A palindrome is a sentence that reads the same backwards as forward, like "Was it a cat I saw?" I would call this video an anti-palindrome; it reads the exact opposite backwards as forward. Not only does it read the opposite, the meaning is the exact opposite. Make sure you read as well as listen…forward and backward. This video that was submitted in a contest by a 20-year old. The contest was titled "u @ 50" by AARP. This video won second place. When they showed it, everyone in the room was awe-struck and broke into spontaneous applause.

Please send this link to every young person you know and every older person who may have lost hope for the future.

Unflattering Snippets of Time

2010-01-10T18:21:00.006-05:00

There's a book coming out called Game Change that has everyone up in arms. If the accusations are true, it makes Bill Clinton and Harry Reid sound like a racists. Harry has already appologized because he actually did say the negroe remark. It will be interesting to see if Bill Clinton admits he really did say of Obama when he was angered at his upset of Hillary, "A few years ago this guy would be serving us coffee." Whether these things were said or not, it's probably fair to consider them snippets in time, and the context should be considered.

But you can read all about that stuff at the above links and in many other venues, what I wanted to point out was Politico's Mike Allen's choice of the worst possible AP photo of Sarah Palin. There are literally thousands of archived photos to choose from. There were probably 100 shots from the very same camera and position that generated this cross-eyed, buck-toothed mug, but they chose the worst possible frame of film to publish.

I've seen Sarah Palin up close in real life, and believe me she is as telegenic and photogenic as most of her appearances prove, but of course, Allen and/or the AP photographer chose this photo as the most accurate portrayal of the governor on her book tour. Maybe there is something to the theory that the left is afraid of Sarah Palin. Why else do they persist in perpetuating the "duffus" image? Maybe they should focus on Harry Reid for a while. He seems to have a foot in his mouth.

6647

2010-01-06T05:36:00.003-05:00

Mr. President, You got your way;
now keep your promise.

By the president's own words, he wants the process televised and open so that it's an honest process. C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb has now offered to make good on Obama's promise. In a recent letter he said, ""Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American." But Speaker Pelosi now mocks Obama's intentions. She needs the doors shut just as they have been shut through this entire one-party process.

So, Mr. President, I urge you to make good on the promise you made at least eight times. Who's in charge you or Nancy Pelosi?
Update: Listen as Brian Lamb explains it here.

And We're Supposed to Feel Safe?

2009-12-30T15:20:00.004-05:00

.
This is what happens when you have a bunch of politically correct appointees who are more concerned about spin in the press and the Miranda rights of Gitmo detainees than they are about being at war with terrorists. Listen to the clips on the screen but scroll down to read the words of former Vice President Cheney as you listen. (Speaking of VPs, haven't seen Biden lately. I feel like he's due for foot-in-mouth moment.)

Start this first clip only if you believe what she says in the second clip about her statement being taken out of context.

The tone of Obama's remarks below is exactly what Cheney is talking about in the text below this last screen.

Can you imagine this him-hah-um-um-um instilling any confidence in our country or our troups when a more serious incedent happens, and yes, I'm afraid to say I think it is far more likely to happen now that Obama and his likes are in charge than it was during the eight Bush-Cheney years. Seriously, the president sounds like the SNL version of himself; he sounds like a college professor telling a bunch of freshmen what will be on the semester exam. He does not sound like a president whose administration and Homeland Security Secretary just dropped the ball with 300 innocent lives at stake. Heaven help us!

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war." Vice President Cheney

Read more here.
6576

2009-12-17T12:26:00.011-05:00

Unmasking the Health-Care Bill Charade
.
Excerpts from speech on the floor today:
Senator Mitch McConnell

‘And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen. That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

“So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.

“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.

“The Majority disagrees.

“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

“Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.

“Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.

“Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.

“And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.

“And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen.

“That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.

“That’s what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

“So this entire process is essentially a charade.

“But let’s just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here’s a snapshot of what we’ve done and where we stand:

• The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend — four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake

• No American who hasn’t been invited into the Majority Leader’s conference room knows what will be in that bill

• This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November — less than four weeks ago.

• We started the amendment process two weeks ago.

• We’ve had 21 amendments and motions — less than two a day.

“Now let’s look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.

“No Child Left Behind" (2001):

• 21 session days or 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 44

• Number of Amendments offered: 157

“9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act" (2002):

• 19 session days over 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 20

• Number of Amendments offered: 30

“Energy Bill" (2002):

• 21 session days over 8 weeks

• Number of Roll Call votes: 36

• Number of Amendments offered: 158

“This isn’t an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy — to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American — and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.

“I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday:

‘Given the enormity and complexity,’ she said, ‘I don’t see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.’

“And I think Senator Snowe’s comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point.

“Here’s what she said in late November:

‘I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade shouldn’t be determined by one vote-margin strategies – surely we can and must do better.’

“The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it. Here’s the latest from Pew. It came out just yesterday.

“A majority (58 percent) of those who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them while only 32 percent favor them.”

“There is no justification for this blind rush — except a political one, and that’s not good enough for the American people.

“And there’s no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen.

“Americans already oppose this bill. The process is just as bad.

“It’s completely reckless, completely irresponsible.”

.....

And may I add, if President Obama is willing to let this happen before the full senate can read it and have proper debate just to get a "win" before Christmas Break, it will reflect not true leadership but rather his desperate need for the pretense of achievement—even the empty shell of achievement—which is a sure sign of what will become a hollow presidency.

And if that does give you hope that the wheels will soon fall off Obama's empty cart, listen to this motivating speech from congressional candidate Lt. Col. Allen West:

.

6517

2009-12-01T06:17:00.000-05:00

.
I Never Cared for Dean's Politics,
But He's Not Afraid to Call it SOCIALISM

Reality vs. Photo Ops...

2009-11-21T06:09:00.003-05:00

.
Wow! I wish I had more to add to this first video clip but it is simply the best explanation I've heard for why Obama has made a terrible decision to try KSM in a federal court.

Among other things, SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM says: "If you're gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you're saying he's subject to criminal court in the United States and you're confusing the people fighting this war."

Another reason this is a pathetic decision on Obama's part is that we will now give these terrorists a televised platform from which to spew their hatred.

***************

On nearly the same day that the above clip was filmed, Obama was in Joe Cool mode with the fighting men and women. I'm not going to pretend he didn't pull off this line and get a respectable laugh. I'm not going to imply that the soldiers didn't feel flattered that he called them a photo op... I'm just saying that if a Republican leader were that glib about those we put in harms way while dithering about their mission, he or she would be excoriated. On a more serious note, I think this tone is foreshadowing of the fact that he is about to end his dithering about future deployments in the least combative way possible, and he will probably time his announcement to capitalize on the Holiday Season. That, too, will be well recieved at first....but then we will remember that this person is still in candidate mode...still candidating for something beyond what he has already gained...this person is the same candidate who would not wear an American flag lapel pin for years until a veteran at another photo op asked him to do so while the cameras rolled.

[In the above montage of photo ops is the one he authorized in NYC near the anniversary and site of 9-11 in which the public thought we were under attack, but hey, he got a nice photo of AF1 in front of the Statue of Liberty, and that's what counts.]

64000

I Missed This Back in July...

2009-11-18T07:58:00.000-05:00

Meet Governor Rick Perry of Texas...

2009-11-12T07:56:00.002-05:00

.

.
The tenth Ammendment reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Think about that in light of what Obama and Pelosi and Reid are trying to do right now. Never has the White House pushed more state governors into a serious study of the implications of the Tenth Ammendment.

When Unions Overstep

2009-11-10T21:56:00.005-05:00

.
I did not know this about FedEx and UPS. Makes me want to use FedEx in the same way that I wish I could go buy a new Ford just to say "Thank you for not taking the bailout money and being the most successful US carmaker during these hard times."

In less than two minutes, this clip will teach you a lot about free enterprise, unions, and the government's power to play favorites with the thugs (and community organizers) that put them in office. We are seeing the birth of a new form of government that can "absolutely, positively guarantee that it can crush any business overnight." [And that goes for private health care providers, too.]

The Power of Seeing the Truth

2009-11-02T22:27:00.007-05:00

Back in August, I speculated about why the state of Connecticut banned 3-D ultrasounds. This story confirms my theory to some extent. The director of this Planned Parenthood watched a 3-D ultrasound of an abortion in progress and suddenly understood the reality of her job with Planned Parenthood, the business ($) of abortion, and her need to become an advocate for life.

"Finally what happened one day was I actually was in the room when a different type of abortion procedure was being done. And that day I just thought, I can't do this anymore," said Johnson. Read full story here.

6284

Folks, This is Rich! Sad but Rich!

2009-10-15T06:35:00.011-04:00

.
The parallels between this story and what Obama and Company are doing to the American people are so obvious I'll not even write them down.
.
You be the judge.
.
This share-the-wealth story exposes the flaws in human nature that inevitably surface when people feel entitled to something for nothing. What a perfect parable for us to watch as we witness the Obamazation of a country built by hard working hands, willing to lend a hand in true need, but never expecting a government hand-out.
.

It will be interesting to see if other video from inside the store surfaces. This account and others tell how the store was trashed and looted while some demanded they be allowed to keep what they piled in their carts even after learning that the "source" of the give-away was actually flat broke and had no means to fulfill such promises.
6150

It's Time for a Dear John Letter, Man

2009-10-05T23:16:00.010-04:00

In case you missed this last Friday night, Dave Letterman had his audience in stitches as he disclosed his multiple sexual harassment exploits with various young female staffers on his show.

Tonight he is going to apologize to his wife (who is the true victim of his "It's good to be the King" mentality, but I hardly believe she was the last to know what he is like with subordinate babes). I'm sure that moment will be heart-felt and aired often in days to come, but other than those lines, reportedly, he just can't help but play his plight for laughs. For his entire career glib irreverence in hopes of a laugh has been his best shot. Sad when that's all you've got. Live by the sword; die by the sword. Play it for all it's worth while you still have fans who think it's funny.

Don't get me wrong. I'm against blackmail (if that's what it was that exposed him); and I think Letterman's truth telling is strategically prudent for a man in his position, but public confession and man-on-the-street forgiveness is not a magic wand in criminal matters, and this is still very likely to turn into sexual harassment case whether he's a celebrity or not. He has to hope for 100% tight-lipped loyalty from all those girls that notched his belt. (Or should we say un-notched it?)

I agree with Andrea Peyser of the New York Post who says dump depraved Dave now! I wonder what the top ten reasons will be for his final exit off that little stage?

One thing is for sure, there will be a movie made of it (there always is), and we haven't heard or seen the half of what his joke writers are capitalizing on for the moment.

Update: next morning video clips found here.

2009-09-24T12:24:00.009-04:00

There's Somethin' Happenin' Here...
Feeling Insecure in the Homeland

Click on this link to see a website about an event that caught my attention today.

Turn your volume up and imagine this happening here at our U.S. Capitol. At the bottom of that web page the Muslim hosts proclaim:

"OUR TIME HAS COME."

Above that it says that the goal of these 50,000+ Muslim worshipers who will gather on the mall, bow toward Mecca, and use loud speakers to chant the Athan ... "echoing off of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill" will be to "...manifest Islam's majestic spiritual principals [sic] as revealed by Allah to our beloved prophet Muhammad (PEACE BE UPON HIM) of Arabia....The peace, beauty and solidarity of Islam will shine through America's capitol."

Is this real? If it is, did you know it was happening Friday? I didn't. I'll confess that it makes me feel pretty insecure about the homeland. It makes me think of a post I wrote last November that hinted that a great nation was about to be changed forever as people mumble "nothing like us ever was." But it's the verb WAS that bothers me the most. It's past tense... I have that feeling again.

I am not saying all Muslims are a threat to our homeland. I'm not saying they're all like Najibullah Zazi, arrested just today as part of a sleeper cell plotting to bomb our homeland. I'm not saying they're all like Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad who calls the Holocaust a myth and only yesterday tried to evangelize his fleeting audience here in our homeland. I'm not saying all Muslims secretly chant "Death to America" or hope to take over our homeland (as shown in the film Obsession. (Click on that link.) I'm not saying homeland security has anything to do with the feelings of insecurity that swept over me as I listened at that Islam on the Capitol website.

But I am saying this is my homeland; I have feelings for my homeland. I have feelings about the buildings of our Capitol and the flag that waves above them. I welcome those who cherish the historic America of our founding fathers, but I am cautious of those new to my homeland who wish to change it to their liking (just as I am cautious of those who only upon ascending to power find reason to be proud of this country). I have feelings for those who would drastically change or harm or "take over" my homeland.

For what it's worth, if 50,000 Muslims descend on DC Friday there's somethin' happenin' here.... unlike anything that has ever happened since Jefferson first penned "We the people..." used so freely in the artwork above.

Update: Friday evening: Sounds like this thing was a flop. Notice the difference between the projections of 50,000+ Muslims in this article the day before the event and this article about the few thousand who actually showed up. The event recieved scant press and caused little stir. I'm okay with that. The less attention the better.

I suspect the following video represents what is more likely to happen as the "take over" continues:

John Stossel Moves to Fox

2009-09-24T00:08:00.000-04:00

I just recently learned that John Stossel of ABC News has left that network to begin a new weekly show at Fox. I plan to watch him there, but do you realize just how blatant the so-called main stream media (MSM) bias will become if the few reasonable voiced like Stossel leave? That sort of bias is the topic of his article this week.

"When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine.

"Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement.

"So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias?"

He explained his reasons for moving last week in last week's article.

"In my new job, I want to dig into the meaning of the words "liberty" and "limited government." For many years, through Republican and Democratic administrations, we have been losing something vital in America: the commitment to individual liberty and the understanding that as government grows, liberty shrinks."

Sounds like what I was saying in that last post. Good for you, John!

It's Not a Sermon. It's a Warning...

2009-09-21T06:50:00.012-04:00

My cousin sent me this video clip. I know many people are inclined to dismiss "preachy" presentations. But rather than ignore this, take note of the following considerations:

First, Pastor Stephen Broden is not a Bible-thumping idiot; he does not fit the Hollywood stereotype so often embraced by those who misunderstand believers with a Biblical worldview. Second, he is not a racist simply because he strongly disagrees with the dramatic changes Obama and his handlers are foisting on America; Third, listen carefully to the implications of what Broder is saying. If you disagree with the premise of Broden remarks (i.e. that these recent events are a set-up for the ultimate clash of historic democratic values and socialism), ask yourself this: What part of bigger and bigger government sounds like the intentions of our founding fathers? In what ways does a nanny-state resemble the pursuit of happiness? The more the government supposedly "gives" the more it takes away--not only through taxes but also individual liberty.

Look at the generations who made this country great for 200 years. Did they take individual responsibility to maintain constitutional rights or did they just keep adding to the list of so-called "rights" and holding out their hand to the government to provide for them? (e.g. Healthcare is not a right. The fact that Obama's plan intends to "tax" (or fine) people for not buying into his program, confirms that it is not a right. Rights cannot be purchased. Sickness, accidents and death are a reality in this broken world. Because of that, healthcare is an important responsibility of each home, etc., but good health and living the longest-possible life are not constitutional rights nor can any government afford to create a world in which such things are promised by the State but funded by the tax payers. Such promises will only increase taxes and dilute the quality of existing health care services in the name of "fairness."

When the founding fathers said "all men are created equal," they did not mean it's the government's duty to put them all in the same mess. I explained this last October in "Thoughts on Home Ownership":

"Ironically, "freedom" and "equality" are conflicting ideals. The "freer" man is to pursue happiness the sooner he becomes less "equal" with those around him, because freedom allows each individual to rise above his current position; it allows for both self-improvement and self pity; it allows one man to build a tire factory, another man to sell rope, and yet another man to put up a tire swing. All three enterprises can be profitable in different ways, but the last one will likely put less in the bank. ... Governments should ensure that all starting lines are equal, but when they change starting lines to "equalize" outcomes, it underscores the conflict between the ideals of freedom and equality."

That was true of the "affordable housing" myth that treated home ownership as a "right" regardless of one's ability to pay for it, and it is equally true of healthcare. Broder does not say this directly in this speech, but what he does say is at the heart of why "gridlock" is more important than ever while America begins to see Obama's "change" for what it really is.

For further reading:

Saul Alinsky. Why some consider Alinsky controversial. More Alinsky commentary. Francis Schaeffer and his "Christian Manifesto."

5906

I Missed the Tea Party

2009-09-12T21:31:00.003-04:00

.
I wasn't at this tea party, but some DC officials have reported that two million people showed up to protest run-away government spending. My guess is it was half that number.

If today's tea party gets any mainstream coverage, I suspect the liberal pundits will focus only on the most outlandish of the signs and quotes of the day, but I dare say, if they cared to be accurate, the vast majority of all those who cared enough to show up at the capitol were decent, fair-minded people.

If one considers the hatred and venom spewed on President Bush (and Sarah Palin for that matter), the worst of the signs were probably far less profain, but I do wish those who make "shocking" posters would ask themselves if they think they are helping or hurting the tea-party cause when they go too far.

Looking ahead to 2010, it is the vastness and volume of a million voices--not the venom of the thoughtless few--that will get the attention of elected big spenders. (I decided to write on this positive story and not the unbelievable exposed corruption of ACORN.)

What Obama Says vs. What He Does

2009-09-08T17:32:00.006-04:00

.
By Thomas Sowell

In order to fully appreciate Thomas Sowell's latest op-ed, we must read these lines from his piece two weeks ago:

What [Obama is] trying to do is to create an America very unlike the America that has existed for centuries-- the America that people have been attracted to by the millions from every part of the world, the America that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.
This is the America for which Michelle Obama expressed her resentment before it became politically expedient to keep quiet.

It is the America that Reverend Jeremiah Wright denounced in his sermons during the 20 years when Barack Obama was a parishioner, before political expediency required Obama to withdraw and distance himself.

The thing most associated with America-- freedom-- is precisely what must be destroyed if this is to be turned into a fundamentally different country to suit Obama's vision of the country and of himself. But do not expect a savvy politician like Barack Obama to express what he is doing in terms of limiting our freedom....

Just as magicians know that the secret of some of their tricks is to distract the audience, so politicians know that the secret of many political tricks is to distract the public with scapegoats.... Barack Obama's escapes from his own past words, deeds and associations have been escapes worthy of Houdini.

Like other magicians, Obama has chosen his distractions well. The insurance industry is currently his favorite distraction as scapegoats, after he has tried to demonize doctors without much success....Obama even gets away with saying things like having a system to "keep insurance companies honest"-- and many people may not see the painful irony in politicians trying to keep other people honest. Certainly most of the media are unlikely to point out this irony.

And here excerpts from his current article:

What Obama Says vs. What He Does

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election?

If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be....There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening....

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing-- and how he has been doing it.

[End of Sowell's essays.]

And the White House wonders why so many people have already lost the trust they had in thier candidate last November; they wonder why some people bristled at the question originally given to teachers to ask after they made thier children listen to today's speech: "Now, What can we do to support the President?" The White House withdrew that question from the rubber-stamped lesson plans, but it tainted the intentions of the noon-day address. Don't get me wrong. I was not overly concerned about today's speech (though our school did not show it due to logistical issues).

Today's speech was innocent enough if one only considers it "words," and as President I think he is entitled to speak to kids about inspirational themes as he did today... but it is tomorrow's speech parents need to worry about. It will be just as charming, and millions of child-like followers will be asked to "support" him after he pulls the last rabbit from his hat.

Last November, Obama sold his goods as "Change You Can Believe In. Belief takes trust...and that's lacking. One thing is for sure: He does not promote change we can THINK about, because he doesn't want America to think about what's really changing. He just wants us to clap at the end of his act.
5808

If This is True... Oh, My!

2009-08-22T13:33:00.000-04:00

Caring about Health and Life

2009-08-21T05:38:00.012-04:00

.
The July post below this one was left on top of the blog for over a month. Each time I came to update or write a new post, I glanced over that post and thought it still summed up how I felt so well that I just left it alone. Who would have guessed that the vocal opposition in town hall meetings would have thrown the Democrats in such disarray? Here's to healthy obstruction!

In the meantime, though, I found the video news clip below about the state of Connecticut banning 3-D and 4-D ultra-sounds like the ones produced by Peek-A-Womb or similar providers.

A few years ago, when I first saw pictures produced by the new 3-D technology, I said to my wife, "This is going to really upset the pro-abortion activists. A picture's worth a thousand words."

I knew images like these would prompt reactions like what the mom in the video says: "I feel more like the baby is real...not just a blob."

I wonder if any other bloggers or media voices will raise the same question I have: Do the liberal lobbyists and legislators in Connecticut find the power of 3-D images of unborn babies a threat to their political agenda? Why would a state ban something with no medical evidence to support thier actions?

Well, let's consider this article written in the New York Times by Connecticut
Senator George C. Jepson: In 1990, Connecticut passed pro-abortion laws so "if Roe were overturned tomorrow, the status quo would be maintained without exception. As a result, Connecticut now ranks in the forefront of states protecting abortion rights."

The passage of that law, however, "was nevertheless supported by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford and the Pro-Life Council of Connecticut."

Why?

Pro-abortion Senator Jepsen explains: "For abortion opponents, the statutory standard for a fetus's viability is an important symbol - the first step in restricting choice. Drawing a line at viability implicitly acknowledges, as Roe did, that states can legislate legal protection for a fetus. There can be no question, however, that the legislation's intent and effect supports abortion rights.... We had aggressive, intelligent lobbying from the Connecticut Coalition for Choice."

I could be wrong, but I suspect many opponants of 3-D ultrasounds are not concerned about risks to the baby (after all they believe a woman has the right to kill it so why would they oppose her taking a picture of it alive and well?). No, the concern is about the powerful pro-life implications of the image. I can't help but think that the 1990 Connecticut lobbyists and legislators (who were willing to rest the abortion question on "viability" of the fetus) now find 3-D images disturbing because they put faces on the unborn. They help expectant mothers see first-hand a viable baby much earlier than was possible in 1990. Pro-abortion advocates may be afraid that the definition of viability will change from "able to live if outside the womb" to "clearly living and waiting to be outside the womb"? I wonder if they winced when they first saw the General Electric TV ad that said, “When you see your baby for the first time on the new GE 4D ultrasound system, it really is a miracle.”

Here's the clip that triggered these thoughts:

5672

Taking Action to Heart

2009-07-16T04:58:00.012-04:00

.
I don't know if any other conservatives feel this way, but for several months, I come home from work and rather than turn on the news to hear the latest, I just skip it. It all seems so predictable (or should I say predicted?) that I can hardly stand to watch it unfold.

For decades America has complained about "gridlock" in D.C., but let's face it... it is gridlock that helps prevent a lot of stupid things from happening; it is gridlock that thwarts "change" that is not for the better. It's gridlock that allows "inaction" to impede ill-advised action. And, yes, I'm including ill-advised action of past Republicans, too, back when they had a little more say in Washington.

Both parties have managed to prove what Lord Action said more than a hundred years ago: "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern: every class is unfit to govern."

The problem we now face in America is that there is no gridlock, no checks and balances. Obama and his liberal hacks are free to force their agenda on the country even as his rating plummet. In fact, I think it is because of his falling numbers that the Democrats will act with all the more urgency. As I said a few posts ago, "Get it done now. Who cares if we get it right."

So I say Here's to gridlock! Here's to standing in the way. Here's to inaction. And who better to quote on this topic than Lord Action himself?

It was Lord Action who said:

"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Lord Action had several other thoughts that speak to the heart of this post. Such as: "There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” Have there ever been so many millions of blind Americans who have proven that heresy as now?

Here's another of his famous lines: "The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

Wisdom from the past is welcome seasoning for the present. This would be a good time to take many of Lord Actions words to heart, but I'll stop with "Socialism is slavery." Still true over a hundred years later.

So yes it is depressing to watch the news these days. Not because of the natural ebb and flow of politics as usual but because of what is grossly unusual, the gaudy parade of audacity dressed up in false hope, of "actions" that are more ill-advised than inaction.

I do not feel as though we are watching the strategic redirection of a great country but rather irreversible changes that will undo that country. Obama is not "building" with Lego blocks; he is playing with dominos and seems to be putting them in place for purposes that perhaps even he does not understand.

5287

2009-07-14T05:36:00.005-04:00

Since I posted the picture below, I also want to point out that I explained how it could be clarified by video even before the video surfaced. See update at the bottom of the post.

Never judge a man or woman on the basis of one snapshot. Have you ever noticed how many "unflattering" pictures were published of our former president and how so few (not including this misleading print) have surfaced of Obama? The same kind of "editing" bias occurs with photo journalism as with all journalism. The bias of the person who decides what the public sees or reads or otherwise has to live with will always influence decisions. It's true for photographers, editing managers, and Supreme Court justice nominations.

2009-07-10T00:03:00.014-04:00

Oh Be Careful Little Eyes What You See...
.
President Obama and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy were waiting to take their places in a picture with junior G8 delegates for a photo in L'Aquila, Italy, yesterday, July 9, 2009.
.
In fairness to both presidents: we live in an age when every frame of motion is captured by rapid-fire cameras. What may look bad in a single frame may be quite innocent on video.

It's possible that both men are just making sure that the young ladies are careful with that first step onto the stage. That's a doozy!
.
(Wouldn't it be awful if the president had said "That's a doozy!" [referring to the step] and it was picked up by an off-camera mike? But like I said, unless the video confirms that both men forgot the admonition of that old Sunday School Song "Oh, Be Careful," I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that this is not what it appears to be.)

Update 8:00AM Friday Morning: We now know that the girl is a teenager from Brazil. (Thank Heaven she was not wearing a black beret.) I'm still reserving judgment until I see video of this same moment. Anything can look bad in a snapshot. Remember a few months back we saw a photo of Obama "bowing" to a Saudi King when none else in the room did. He denied it. But when the video came out, it clearly was a bow or bent-knee curtsy. Likewise, the video will reveal the truth of what might be called "The Snapshot Heard 'Round the World."

I have not yet turned on the radio or TV this morning, but I predict that the talk of the day--if this story has legs (as they say in journalism)--will not be about whether or not the peek happened. The act itself will be minimized to water-cooler talk about how everybody does it, "look don't touch" is okay, etc. It will be laughingly swept under the rug by the media boys and girls and late-night jokesters in Clintonesque fashion (If the snapshot were of George W. Bush there'd be no end to it even if the video proved his innocence!)

If that's the case, working women beware. Just when you thought you were "equal," the president will have inadvertently made ogling younger models of "the weaker sex" acceptable again.

So far, the "boys will be boys" tone has come through in the articles already printed in some parts of the world. Apparently, the bum story does have legs: I hope it's cleared up as the day goes on.

Article One: "Oh là là, President Checks Out Bum"
Article Two: "Quello sguardo "indiscreto" di Obama" (which I think means "Off-guard indiscretion of Obama")
Article Three: "Tail to the Chief"

Friday Night Update: ABC did Obama a favor and showed the video that I presumed would surface, and in this case... President Obama seems to have passed the test that former President Clinton [and French President Sarkozy] failed. As I originally said, with these new cameras that let the paparazzi take countless snapshots per second, a photo can catch a misleading and or unflattering fragment of time. See video here.
5185

2009-06-29T08:35:00.002-04:00

The other day I was talking with one of my family members who had asked me the simple question: "The Bible asks us to look out for the widows and the orphans and to care for those in need so why do you get so frustrated each day when you hear about Obama taking money from those who have it to give to those who don't?"

I answered as best I could by saying something like, "The Bible compels us as individuals to do those things voluntarily with the information we have on hand about those God brings into our lives. Scripture does not ask us to ignore all we know about human nature; it does not expect us to ignore all the wisdom found in the book of Proverbs about hard work and sloth and wise versus foolish uses of our resources. The Bible does not ask the same government that expels Him from its schools to create a dependent cast of society by keeping them on the dole. Scripture asks believers to do these things at a very local, individual basis, where a high level of accountability, love, and care can also be part of the equation. When a bureaucratic government attempts to do equalize the masses, that is a whole different process."

I did not have this parable to read at the time, but I think it would have answered the question even better. A friend sent this to me the other day.

Dinner with Obama:
A Parable (Author Unknown)

Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.

I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.

The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.

"Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."

"I don't appreciate..." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp.

"And his brother Eric is very thirsty." said the President.

I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind.

My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.

"Eric's children are also quite hungry."

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.
"And their grandmother can't stand for long."

I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President.

Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."

I wanted to shout- that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.

"Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a sub-prime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do."

My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine.

"By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars."

I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty dish which had been his Creme Brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I just played ... and lost?
What had I done wrong?

As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million beautiful white teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.

"You fool," he said. "You should have stopped me at the dinner roll!"

2009-06-26T17:49:00.004-04:00

Who Cares if We Get it Right ...
Just Get it Through!

I'm sorry to have been away for so long from this blog. To be honest, I've taken a break from the daily fatigue of Obama's forced agenda. It's scary, folks. This is a president intent on irreversable "change" whether it's right for the country or not. As the global warming legislation heats up on the Hill, please tell your friends about this article in the Wall Street Journal.

"Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

"If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

"Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S....

"Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day....

"Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone."

Let's Call the Whole Thing Off

2009-06-09T06:59:00.013-04:00

.

"You say potato, and I say patoto. You say tomato, and I say tomoto..." Don't you just love that old Gershwin song? I typically don't tamper with classics, but it may be time to add another line to those lyrics. We all know that POTUS stands for President of the United States, but what does TOTUS stand for. It's obvious. In fact it's right there in our face every time we see Obama speak.

So I suggest we add "You say POTUS and we say TOTUS" to that old song.

(We may also want to delete the part about calling off the calling off.)

We all know that MSNBC has been in the tank for Obama ever since Chris Matthews first got a "tingle up his leg" while listening to his candidate read a teleprompter. So you know Obama is in for some tough sledding when even his favorite "news" network does a casual hit piece on him and his ubiquitous teleprompter.

I must admit, I had heard of TOTUS but not until this post have I visited the website.

4920

2009-06-06T09:50:00.004-04:00

There is just too much to say this week. I don't know where to start. I said it way back in the archives, friends. Obama... (or should we say Barrack Hussein Obama, since he himself now proudly underscores the same Hussein moniker that conservatives were condemned for using during the campaign)...But as I was saying, back in the archives, I said that Obama seemed to be running not for President of the United States but President of the World (or some such position never filled by any man before).

Lots happening in my life right now, including taking my daughter to the airport today for a two-month mission trip to Croatia. We're sad but proud of her. Lot's of other things going on, too. It will be a week or so before I have time to write here. Maybe then there will be more obvious dots to connect regarding the act that is unfolding before us on the global stage.
.

That Cocky Lift of the Head...

2009-05-27T17:13:00.008-04:00

.
In the comments of Memorial Day post below two readers pointed out that it was that lift of the chin, that arrogant "better than you" look that he has when he speaks that bothered them the most in President Obama's speech last Thursday in which he proudly pointed out how wrong the Bush national security efforts were for the eight years following 9-11 when we had no further attacks on our homeland.

I'll let these recently exhibited photos of "Barry the Freshman" speak for themselves. Since he was only 19 at the time, we may want to cut him some slack, but it is worth noting that that cocky lift of his head has been part of his "feeling cool" persona for many years.
4825

On This Memorial Day... Let's Not Forget

2009-05-23T16:48:00.019-04:00

If you did not hear this entire speech, go to this link to watch the video clips in sequence (begin with part 2 since part 1 was above.) Please listen to that entire speech and then come back.

The full text of the speech can be read here.

In the hour prior to Cheney's address, President Obama gave an inspiring speech about ideals. Parts of his speech were like the Atticus Finch closing argument in To Kill a Mockingbird, but other parts of the speech were as Cheney said, "recklessness cloaked in righteousness." Never has a sitting president more unfairly and naively characterized a previous presidency and a congressionally-approved policy. But most Americans did not hear this excellent Cheney rebuttal, perhaps the most important speech of this former vice president's lifetime. They heard only liberal late-night pundits and tangled exchanges like this one when Cheney's daughter tries to untwist the continued spin of Obama and his puppet press:

Notice how many "jump cuts" happen to Liz Cheney. I wish I had her unedited comments. Second, notice how O'Donnel completely manipulates the facts (e.g. Cheney does not want more documents released, he wants the "whole story" of the documents Obama already released. O'Donnel kept saying "There is zero evidence that the three instances of water-boarding were effective..." Duh.... that evidence (the thwarted plans learned of by enhanced interrogation) is the part of the documents Obama refuses to release.) O'Donnel is just one in a media legion eager to say anything to reshape reality in Obama's favor.

Believing that we are at war and knowing that war is an ugly business, we can assume it is never pleasant to know the details. It was not meant to be shown on television, and is not fit for courtroom drama. It is not an abandonment of our ideals when we do not grant the rights of the U.S. Constitution to enemy combatants who hate us because of those rights and that constitution.

Never have two speeches more clearly presented different approaches on matters of national security, but I believe former Vice President Cheney won this debate hands down last Thursday. I say this out of respect for the generation who knows first-hand the ugliness of war and for those who currently serve. I say it because the respect I have for the people who protect us soars high above the feelings I have for the thousands of lawyers who will be steadily employed in defense of known terrorists if Obama get his way.

4781

Update: Here is just one Pollyannish example of the kind of spin I knew would come from these two contrasting speeches. What the liberal cheerleader fails to note is that one of the worldviews prevented yet-untold attacks on this country; the other one hope people are basically good at heart and that the tens of thousands of militant Muslims who hate America will tap into their spark of divinity and start cheering for the Yankees.

Laughing Matters...

2009-05-10T23:42:00.013-04:00

.
Update 5-17-09: Word to Biden. "Loose Lips Sink Ships!" But, hey, as long as you get a laugh, I guess the rest is just about national security. And then there's David Axelrod, Obama's campaigne cheif, who couldn't resist a joke connecting Miss California to a dog. I have not touched the Miss California story because it has saturated the news cycle (and she said nothing wrong in the first place), but I mention it here because Axelrod tried to make it a laughing matter.

I know that the speech at the Whit House Correspondents Dinner is a time when presidents have typically used self-deprecating humor, but if you listen carefully, this is different than such occasions in the past. Listen to how many seriously controversial issues Obama glibly mocks. Since my last post was about his Chief of Staff, I'll mention that at about the 3:20 mark on this video he confirms the reputation of Rahm Emanuel's foul mouth. He later seems to joke about seeking a gay marriage in Iowa and about "people of color." He is truly enjoying his close ties to the press.

Granted, this speech was written by writers, and Obama delivers it well for laughs, but at the 12:30 mark, his remarks turn serious toward the press in the room. He talks about the need for newspapers and complains about cable news (which means Fox News. He left talk radio alone since Wanda Sykes had already gone there as you'll see in the bottom screen.).

In the middle of these serious closing remarks (at 14:55), he says:"We look to you for truth even if it's always an approximation." And the room full of reporters whom he already revealed had "all voted for him" all laughed. But he was not trying to be funny. Truth to Obama is an approximation, a commodity forged when the heat of reality as he sees it is dipped into the "cool" he exudes.

But before all that, our president sat and listened to gay-activist-comedian Wanda Sykes completely twist the truth about some remarks made by Rush Limbaugh months ago when he said he hoped that the socialist ideas forced upon the nation in Obama's first 100 days would not succeed so that America could return to being a free enterprise country without the government taking everything over. In other words, "quit bailing out things doomed to fail. When government "fixes it" (ala the "affordable housing" fiasco) they ruin it."

Rush's true statement and the media's twisting of it has been written about ad nausium and every person in that room knows what was truly said and meant. They know Sykes is flat-out lying. Not to mention that nearly every news outlet in that room covered countless remarks against President Bush from antagonists who hoped his initiatives would fail, and that was never called treason. But that is because Bush was not the "Chosen One." That is the only explanation of why Sykes can get a presidential laugh from her public "hate crime."

It's shameless, but look at the audience reaction and the ever-cool smile on the president's face. I don't care what a person thinks of Rush Limbaugh, this is public hate in the face of the president. Is this what Obama means when he says "truth is an approximation"? That one of his followers can twist someone's words into a lie; repeat it often to the fawning press; laugh at it collectively; and thereby it becomes truth?

In fairness to Wanda Sykes, her opening 7 minutes poked playful fun at those in the room for fawning over Obama. She also lampooned Joe Biden, but is his endless blather a laughing matter? During a time of war "loose lips sink ships" is not funny.

I used to tell my students that you can tell a lot about a person's character when you take note of the things that make him laugh and the things that make him cry. Those emotions spring from the heart. (The same can be said of a room full of people.) Since we have not yet seen Obama "moved to tears" at the death of his grandmother, or at the bedside of a wounded soldier, or while handing a widow a traiangular flag. Thus far, we only have these "cool" occasions to go by, and that’s why his laughing matters…
.
Since the president had a few laughs at our expense Saturday night, let's take a moment to have a few at his.

4642

Shoud We Trust This Man?

2009-05-05T05:56:00.006-04:00

.
The time I heard of Rahm Emanuel he was President Bill Clinton's campaign finance director who later became his senior advisor. Stories of his shrewd "craftiness" made him seem like an epic villain loved only by those who used him (not knowing it was the other way around).

Then in 2002, when Emanuel pursued the U.S. House seat in the 5th District of Illinois previously held by Rod Blagojevich, disgraced Governor of Illinois, my suspicions that Emanuel was a crooked Chicago insider only grew. (And grew deeper as he seemed embroiled in both the Blagojevich corruption and the merger of Clinton-Obama power in the 2008 campaign.)

My long affection for Israel and those who defend that state are a matter I'll take up in a different post. So why my feelings of distrust for a man whose Jewish roots go so deep in his father's homeland that some have alleged he has dual citizenship in Israel. But Emanuel's deep roots in Israel and Chicago's Jewish community have always seemed a bit self-serving. Once you know his background from, in, and with Israel (links above), he becomes even more mysterious in that his loyalties are hard to ascertain.
.
The fact that he is a "wait and see who's likely to win" politician was made clear in 2008 when he slithered from under the Clinton's rock (where he'd lived for over a decade) over to the Obama camp. And thus, he continues a long record of being a "master mind" behind people who hold enormous power on the world stage.

Considering what is waiting in the wings of that world stage; considering that Israel will be center stage; and considering that some would argue that the world stage is a place for puppets, it may be wise to follow the words and actions of this man who pulls so many strings.

Over the weekend, Emanuel seems to have given Israel a veiled threat that unless they appease the Palestinians, the Arab world will step back and let Iran "take her out."

This article in the Jerusalem Post said: "Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. The remarks were reportedly made in a closed-door meeting previous day with 300 major AIPAC donors on Sunday."
.
Next Day Update: "Obama Take Tougher Tone Against Israel"
4568

One Way or the Other...

2009-04-29T06:33:00.010-04:00

.
The Fox TV network has ruffled some feathers by turning down President Obama's request to show his prime-time news conference tonight, which marks his 100th day in office. (All other major networks will bump their primetime shows for the presser.)

Instead of the president, Fox viewers will see an episode of the Tim Roth drama "Lie to Me" at 8PM EST.

I trust you all fully appreciate how tempting it would be to say that, at that same hour, ABC, CBS and NBC will be airing a different program by the same name. (Or would it be "Lie to Us"?)
.
But I will resist that temptation, because it would be disrespectful and perhaps inaccurate, since so far Obama has done pretty much what he told "Joe the Plumber" he intended to do. [See this post from last November.] With Obama, it's not so much a question of lying--it's a question of smooth-tongued fast-talk to a nation in search of Big government cure-alls. Fox TV is simply saying that it doesn't want to be the fourth wheel on Obama's snake-oil wagon.
.
Like this L.A. Times blogger says, the choice makes perfect sense for Fox since their Fox News channel will take the market share of cable viewers. One way or the other, I think a lot of people will be watching "Lie to Me" tonight.

Update: Having now watched the press conference, I must change the "smooth-tongued fast talk" line. There is nothing fast about his talk when he is off the telelprompter. His answers stumble and stammer out with endless "uhs" between the words in such a way so as to seem "deep" and less like "snake oil" than molasses. The changes Obama has brought to this nation in 100 days have made our heads spin, but his talking about it tonight nearly lulled me to sleep.

Two things did jump out at me: This morning I said, "Obama has done pretty much what he told Joe the Plumber he intended to do." Tonight he said, "“The priorities that we’ve acted on are the things we said we would do during the campaign. It’s not like anybody should be surprised.” The other obvious observation from the presser is that Obama certainly still has the press "enchanted." I suppose things could be worse, and I fear that in the months ahead, we will see that group asking far more urgent questions. We'll see how the stumbling "ums" play out when the conference is not staged.
4462

Hype You Can't Believe In

2009-04-24T00:16:00.002-04:00

This short post is an add-on to last night's post below:

Just when I resurrect an old post about the meaningless question "Is the country headed in the right direction?" I see this article about that question the next day.

Talk about hype you can't believe in! The headline screams:

"AP Poll: Americans high on Obama, direction of US"

It then opens with the completely meaningless line: "For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future."

Now after reading that headline and opening sentance, would you not think that the vast majority of America is confident in our direction and giving Obama credit for it all? Think again. Based on the actual facts of the article the headline should have been:

"80 % of American Concerned about Obama's Reckless Spending and Debt"

Fewer than Half of Americans Think Country Headed in Right Direction"

"Obama's 'Wrong Direction' Fail to Break 50% in first 100 Days"

As I have always said, the "Wrong Direction" question is a useless assessment of anything because it does not define terms or what to change, but if the A.P. is going to use it to write a headline, it should at least reflect the fact that 3 to 4% of the 51% who voted for Obama do not think he is going in the right direction; less than half of the country is "high on Obama."; less than half think we're going in the right direction. Here's what the article with the false headline actually said.

"_More than 90 percent of Americans consider the economy an important issue, the highest ever in AP polling.

_Nearly 80 percent believe that the rising federal debt will hurt future generations, and Obama is getting mixed reviews at best for his handling of the issue.

And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track."

The Power and Hazard Of Undefined Terms

2009-04-23T04:47:00.009-04:00

Back in September of "08, I was writing a post from the floor of a McCain/Palin town hall meeting and said the following [in brown text]:

"Before I close... there is another question we hear during political races that is completely meaningless because its terms are undefined. You’ve heard it in countless polls that for some reason get reported as if it's shocking news. It is the answer to this survey question that has much of “the media,” pollsters, and spin doctors perplexed. Here’s the poll question:

“Is the country headed in the wrong direction?”

In any given week, we may hear that 80% of those asked feel America's headed in the wrong direction. If that is true, some people conclude, then there should be no way for a Republican presidential candidate to win an election in 2008. But the question is meaningless because the word direction is not defined. Are we talking economic direction? Military direction? Moral direction? The question never tells us. Because of that, Pamela Anderson would answer the question “Yes, it’s going in the wrong direction” for reasons shared by her Hollywood peers and the 50% of America that cares what "stars" think. Meanwhile the other 50% of America may also answer “Yes” because they shudder at the thought that the opinions of Pamela Anderson reflect the collective conscience of so many people.

So you see, the answer to the “wrong direction” question is meaningless in that the “yes” responses are often interpreted as a unified assessment while actually masking opposing concerns and conflicting solutions.

The epitome of meaninglessness of that "wrong direction" question was crystallized in Obama's campaign slogan "Change You Can Believe In." Question: What did that really mean? Answer: Whatever Obama and his teleprompter controllers want it to mean.

But now that the first "100 days" of "Change you can believe in" is open to evaluation, and our president is glad-handing on both continents with known enemies of the United States, lets look at what one of those enemies says to confirm what I meant when I said meaningless "undefined" terms like "wrong direction" and "change" are clever ways to get in office but dangerous ways to govern:

Here are the words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"I should give you, the new US administration, this advice. Mr Obama came to power with the slogan of 'change', meaning the American people like the rest of the world want a change in the colonialism policy," Ahmdinejad told crowds in a speech broadcast live from Varamin, a city south of Tehran.

"Therefore it would have been imperative for him to take part in the world's most important conference of racism and denounce racism, (confirming) that the US is pursuing a changed policy in confronting racism," he added.

"But to sit at his place and condemn my remarks is not helpful in solving the issues," he added, amid the habitual slogans of "death to America and death to Israel."

Ahmadinejad is an enemy that Obama, thus far, has given wide birth, but even the enemies Obama is trying to be chummy with seem unimpressed.

How soon the fine veneer flakes off the pulpy wood.

There is both power and hazard in being vague enough fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but make no mistake that kind of power is short-lived and the hazards lead not to "change" but to irreparable damage.
.

I Only Have One Question...

2009-04-16T21:05:00.013-04:00

.
On April 15th, President Obama spoke at Georgetown University in Gaston Hall. After setting the stage it was noted that IHS (a traditional Catholic symbol for the name of Jesus) was in the architecture behind the president. No problem, right? After all Georgetown is a Catholic university not unlike Notre Dame where he will be delivering the commencement address in a few weeks. Wrong. Big problem evidently. After all, we can't have a symbol of Christ in the background of the president's speech... not the week after his big speech in Turkey where he praised Islam for shaping the world and the U.S. for the better. (Still waiting for Barak or Michelle to give a speech about how proud they are of the shaping of our country by Christianity.)

So the president's "advance team" asked the university to cover over Christ's name with a painted piece of plywood (seen at right) that was still up after the speech. There... problem averted. Now we don't have to worry about offending the Muslims or Jews or anyone else who may take offense at the name of Christ.

I only have one question: When the president makes a speech from one of the many Islamic masques springing up across this country, will he ask them to cover any symbols of Islam or Mohammed behind him before he speaks there? Something tells me that he would do the exact opposite. Something tells me that in a non-Christian religious setting, he would be more likely to flaunt his presence there and to model sensitivities to their sacred symbols.

I am not saying this "cover up" was an ANTI-Christ statement (ANTI as in "opposed to"), I'm just saying that it was a "camera angle" consideration that trampled on the sensitivities of the host school, Georgetown, and something tells me that Obama (or those responsible for the order) would only have the audacity to cover a Christian symbol--with symbols of non-Christian religions, I think their political correctness would prompt quite opposite actions.

Watch the pro-Islam speech in Turkey at this link. Like me, you'll probably find no fault in the "olive branch" Obama holds out to Muslims, but again I only have one question: when Obama speaks in a Muslim venue, and that will surely happen, will he rudely cover up the symbols of their faith? I would hope not. So why not show the same respect and caution for the name of Christ?

Read more about it here. Click on photos to enlarge.

231

2009-04-16T05:45:00.008-04:00

The Post Below is Playing Out with The Pirates...

In the previous post, I said of the 1967 film, To Sir, With Love:

"Having been a teacher and/or school administrator for 30 years, I must admit I've always been a sucker for those "teacher-befriends-hoodlum-students" movies. It seems Hollywood cranks out that familiar plot at least once or twice a decade. If there is any place where optimism and ideals should have a fighting chance... it's in a school.

Today I revised that post slightly to include the pirates as an example:

"But in the real world, there are hundreds of stories never told about teachers who cared and tried just as hard as Poitier did as "Sir," but they end up being run over by the hoodums, who almost always take all that chumminess as an opportunity to start yet another spit-ball war. In other words... in the real world, it's hard to get real pirates to change their ways and try-out for the school play--even if the play is The Pirates of Penzance. In the real world, "pirate ships [do not] lower their flags when Puff roars out his name."

Even supposed Euro-allies take flattery and chumminess as signs of weakness. Obama has been cozying up to Sarkozy for months, and look how easily the French president slapped him down yesterday.

Perhaps now that the president has been in the shoes of his predecessor for 3-and-a-half months, he'll begin to understand that other world leaders will soon tire of his "rock star" glow. Perhaps before matters get much worse in Somalia and other hotspots, he'll begin understanding that it takes credible Mr. Tibbs-type action to get the attention of nations that harbor terrorists and pirates.

Which Poitier Role Will It Be?

2009-04-10T07:45:00.009-04:00

After weeks of watching our president's soft reaction to those most likely to remain our enemies (or self-serving allies), Obama seems rather like a first-year school teacher who is trying to "make nice" with the worst students in each class... actually thinking that if he's "cool" with them it will all turn out like Sidney Poitier in "To Sir, With Love," where the very thugs that hated the teacher eventually sing songs of adoration to him.

Having been a teacher and/or school administrator for 30 years, I must admit I've always been a sucker for those "teacher-befriends-hoodlum-students" movies. It seems Hollywood cranks out that familiar plot at least once or twice a decade. If there is any place where optimism and ideals should have a fighting chance... it's in a school.

"But in the real world, there are hundreds of stories never told about teachers who cared and tried just as hard as Poitier did as "Sir," but they end up being run over by the hoodums, who almost always take all that chumminess as an opportunity to start yet another spit-ball war. In other words... in the real world, it's hard to get real pirates to change their ways and try-out for the school play--even if the play is The Pirates of Penzance. In the real world, "pirate ships [do not] lower their flags when Puff roars out his name."
.
That being said, I don't mind this "let's be friends approach" as long as the president is also ready to take on a different Sidney Poitier role that shows the strength of Detective Virgil Tibbs from "In the Heat of the Night."

Perhaps now that the president has been in the shoes of his predecessor for 3-and-a-half months, he'll begin understanding that it takes Mr. Tibbs-type action to get the attention of nations that harbor terrorists and pirates. It's the latter role I suspect he will need to master by the end of his first semester, but if I'm wrong, and if we begin to witness one big global "Kumbaya" hug with one man at the center... beware... things are not always as the seem.
.
4174

2009-04-09T10:17:00.008-04:00

In the comments of the previous post, I see that someone asked about Obama's bow to the Saudi King. I must admit I am a few days behind the news cycle, but with a brief window to the internet, I got caught up on this and other matters buzzing like gnats around the POTUS's head. In case you missed it, here is a Ben Smith article that puts it in a nutshell.

Since I don't have time to fully comment, I'll simply say that either this was a huge faux pas (none of the the other world leaders did it, and no previous POTUS has shown such obeisance) or it was a not-s-subtle hint of Obama's willingness to do whatever it takes to show his desire to please and appease Muslims. One thing is for sure, it was not an attempt to equalize his height for better eye contact (as Obama's aid lamely suggests below).

"The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity..."
.

.
4170

No Fooling. This is a Good Read

2009-04-01T06:06:00.000-04:00

On a day set aside for unexpected tomfoolery, it might be good to read an article about "common sense."

"I don't hate the president. I rather like him, on a personal level. What's not to like? He's personable. He's charming. He's intelligent.

What I hate is what he's attempting to do to this country. He sincerely believes that the government can spend its way out of debt. As I've said, that's akin to believing one can drink his way to sobriety. It defies logic but logic is not the currency of liberalism; emotion is.

"Liberals look at our current economic situation and scream and cry that our government should do something. Anything! That's an emotional response to a problem that requires logic and common sense to solve. It's easy to throw money at a problem in a fit of misguided compassion, but throwing money around is exactly how we got here. So those of us who criticize the policies of this administration are systematically targeted for destruction.

"What's so disturbing about this trend is the damage it does to our fundamental right to freedom of speech, to freedom of the press, to the free exchange of ideas. It is not I who hate; rather, it is those who disagree with me who hate me for holding an opinion contrary to their own.

"These supposedly open-minded liberals seem to be all about diversity except when it comes to diversity of thought."

Phil Valentine is an author and syndicated radio talk show host with Westwood One, heard locally on SuperTalk 99.7WTN weekdays from 4-8 p.m. His column appears on Sundays. For more of his commentary and articles, visit PhilValentine.com.