Amid all the pomp and ceremony of yesterday's Inauguration was a strong current of what used to be called, "Black Pride". This was a familiar term to those who lived through the '60's and '70's when civil rights was front page news everyday. Things have settled down considerably since then and most people just go about their every day lives oblivious to race and the color of people's skin. But last night a song was sung which spoke truth to the lie, "It's not about race!" Young Jezzy and Jay-Z sang the jarring"My President Is Black" to a cheering room full of Obama supporters and no one seems to think there's anything offensive in the least about it. Here are some of the lyrics:
Young Jeezy: I know you all are thanking a lot of people right now, the people of Barack Obama campaign. Just everybody who did everything, on the street getting votes and all that and sh*t. I wanna thank two people, I wanna thank the mother f**ker overseas that threw two shoes at George Bush and I wanna thank-and listen, listen-and I wanna thank the mother f**kers who helped dem move their sh*t up out of the White House. Keep it moving bitch because my president is mother f**king black, nigga!
2:02-2:06Jeezy: NiggaJay-Z: You know itJeezy: I’m so proud to be black right now. I don’t even know what to say, nigga.
Jay Z- at about 5:40 on this videoNeva thought Id Say this sh*t baby Im goodYou can keep ya Puss,I dont want no More BUSHNo More War, No More IraqNo More White LIES, My President is BLACK
Just a note, Jay-Z and Little Jeezy; Obama is our president and the color of his skin is immaterial. Remember what was repeated over and over by the Democratic Party during the campaign? It's not about race.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Setting The Story Straight
Since the start of 2007, 16,000 civilians have been killed in fighting. Not in Gaza, so you may have missed it. It was in Somalia, where an Islamist movement is fighting Ethiopian troops. This is the 18th year of civil strife in that country.
In Sri Lanka, some 70,000 people have perished in a civil war that has flared on and off since 1983. The regime in Burma has killed thousands and forced an estimated 800,000 into involuntary servitude.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), 45,000 people are dying every month. Nearly 5.5 million have died since 1998 in a conflict that grew out of the violence in Rwanda and spread. Half of those deaths were of children under the age of five, according to the International Rescue Committee. The violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has caused more human devastation than any conflict since World War II.
In Darfur, Sudan, more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million made homeless by violence.
To cite these sad data is not to suggest that suffering is tolerable in any particular case—but merely to observe that the world is strangely blinkered in choosing the tragedies to which it responds.
Thanks you, Mona Charen, for keeping the facts in front of our eyes. Hopefully there will be more people with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Read the entire article here.
In Sri Lanka, some 70,000 people have perished in a civil war that has flared on and off since 1983. The regime in Burma has killed thousands and forced an estimated 800,000 into involuntary servitude.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), 45,000 people are dying every month. Nearly 5.5 million have died since 1998 in a conflict that grew out of the violence in Rwanda and spread. Half of those deaths were of children under the age of five, according to the International Rescue Committee. The violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has caused more human devastation than any conflict since World War II.
In Darfur, Sudan, more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million made homeless by violence.
To cite these sad data is not to suggest that suffering is tolerable in any particular case—but merely to observe that the world is strangely blinkered in choosing the tragedies to which it responds.
Thanks you, Mona Charen, for keeping the facts in front of our eyes. Hopefully there will be more people with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Read the entire article here.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Have We Elected A Ruler?
According to Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama will be "ready to rule on day one." Interesting choice of words, Valerie. Is that something you came up with on the spur of the moment or is a term that's being used regularly in the Obama camp so it just seemed like a natural thing to say?
Valerie Jarrett is the co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team so this would lead one to believe she's spending quality time with president-elect Obama and his advisers. A less arrogant descriptor might have been "serve" or "govern", but that's not the kind of attitude the public has come to expect from Obama. Rather, the voters have come to expect Obama to accept "messiah" and "The One" as words that pertain to him without reservation.
This should not be a surprising turn of events as Obama was swept in to office through a mist of cult of personality. A personality the details of which were sketched with very little detail by the journalists who are called to inform the voting public. The journalists and media in general got their man and he will rule us and them soon enough.
Valerie Jarrett is the co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team so this would lead one to believe she's spending quality time with president-elect Obama and his advisers. A less arrogant descriptor might have been "serve" or "govern", but that's not the kind of attitude the public has come to expect from Obama. Rather, the voters have come to expect Obama to accept "messiah" and "The One" as words that pertain to him without reservation.
This should not be a surprising turn of events as Obama was swept in to office through a mist of cult of personality. A personality the details of which were sketched with very little detail by the journalists who are called to inform the voting public. The journalists and media in general got their man and he will rule us and them soon enough.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Free Ponies For Everyone!
Sorry to disappoint, but no free ponies. How about this then: Free health care for everyone! Makes just about as much sense and yet 44% of American adults say health care services should be free for all Americans. According to a Rasmussen poll 59% of Democrats favor free health care for all where Republicans are opposed to the idea 64% to 25%.
The implications of a free (payed for by taxpayers) health care system are staggering. Just look at any county or state hospital anywhere in this country. There's not enough tax money in the world to bail out the ones in financial trouble. They stand just blocks from not for profit hospitals that are well managed and successful. Both accept Medicare and Medicaid patients, both offer excellent care, both employ professional workers using state-of the-art technology. The difference is one is run by a government bureaucracy and the other is run by the private sector.
Just imagine the same level of competence at our public schools and highway departments applied to your doctor's office. Ready to be told where and when you can have a surgical procedure that is now your choice? Ready to have government workers visit your home to check up on your parenting skills? Ready to be denied care because you are too fat or you smoke? These are all realities in Canada and England. The health care talk in England now sounds like our talk about Social Security-they can't sustain it.
What I would love to ask some of the people who favor free (payed for by taxpayers) health care is- How would you feel if the government took over your industry and gave it to everyone for free? What if the government told you where your office would be and how much you would be payed? Why not free food? Free clothes? Free childcare? Free cars? Free houses? These are all things we need and sometimes struggle to pay for. Some or all of these things are given to employees by their employers.....just like health care.
Does it make logical sense for us to pay taxes to the Federal government so they can provide all the things we need in our lives? We will not only loose the efficiency of privately run services and companies, we'll also loose the free will to choose which services and companies to patronize. How about we cut out the middle man and just be responsible for ourselves.
The implications of a free (payed for by taxpayers) health care system are staggering. Just look at any county or state hospital anywhere in this country. There's not enough tax money in the world to bail out the ones in financial trouble. They stand just blocks from not for profit hospitals that are well managed and successful. Both accept Medicare and Medicaid patients, both offer excellent care, both employ professional workers using state-of the-art technology. The difference is one is run by a government bureaucracy and the other is run by the private sector.
Just imagine the same level of competence at our public schools and highway departments applied to your doctor's office. Ready to be told where and when you can have a surgical procedure that is now your choice? Ready to have government workers visit your home to check up on your parenting skills? Ready to be denied care because you are too fat or you smoke? These are all realities in Canada and England. The health care talk in England now sounds like our talk about Social Security-they can't sustain it.
What I would love to ask some of the people who favor free (payed for by taxpayers) health care is- How would you feel if the government took over your industry and gave it to everyone for free? What if the government told you where your office would be and how much you would be payed? Why not free food? Free clothes? Free childcare? Free cars? Free houses? These are all things we need and sometimes struggle to pay for. Some or all of these things are given to employees by their employers.....just like health care.
Does it make logical sense for us to pay taxes to the Federal government so they can provide all the things we need in our lives? We will not only loose the efficiency of privately run services and companies, we'll also loose the free will to choose which services and companies to patronize. How about we cut out the middle man and just be responsible for ourselves.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Comments From Israel
If the shoe fits...................... U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday decried his critics' calls for negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as comparable to the "appeasement" of Adolf Hitler before World War Two.
Bush's comment in a speech to Israel's parliament was widely interpreted as a swipe at Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama, who has advocated talks without preconditions with leaders of such hostile nations as Iran and Cuba.
Though Bush did not name names, Obama quickly issued a blistering response accusing the president of launching a "false political attack."
But the White House denied Bush was referring to the Illinois senator when, drawing parallels to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, he denounced those he said had urged him to talk to "terrorists and radicals."
Bush's rebuff to his critics also followed a Middle East visit by former President Jimmy Carter, who met Hamas leaders shunned by Israel and Washington and urged efforts to draw the militant group into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Though Bush did not name names, Obama quickly issued a blistering response accusing the president of launching a "false political attack."
But the White House denied Bush was referring to the Illinois senator when, drawing parallels to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, he denounced those he said had urged him to talk to "terrorists and radicals."
Bush's rebuff to his critics also followed a Middle East visit by former President Jimmy Carter, who met Hamas leaders shunned by Israel and Washington and urged efforts to draw the militant group into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
Florida Voters
It's primary season and you're a conscientious citizen so you go along to the polls to vote. You care about the economy, Iraq, and health care so you've put much thought into your decision. But wait....you voted for a Democrat candidate in Florida or Michigan. Then you have just become a disenfranchised voter thanks to the leadership of the Democrat party. The party that perennially questions the wisdom of the Electoral College and electronic polling booths is conveniently mum on the electoral process this year. Their super delegates are taking the voting privilege out of the hands of the voters across the country, not to mention the large states of Florida and Michigan. If there is any outcry from Democrat voters, it's not being reported in the press. Are these voters willingly giving up their franchise or are they being silenced by the ones taking the franchise away?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Vested Interest
Apparently Al Gore has money to make from the Global Warming scare. Read more about it here. Here's a quote from Gore's speech:
There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
Here's a related article about a Nobel Prize winning scientist who is now changing his tune about Global Warming and CO2. Money quote:
"admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures."
We better pay attention or we'll be paying for our apathy and ignorance with our pocketbook.
There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
Here's a related article about a Nobel Prize winning scientist who is now changing his tune about Global Warming and CO2. Money quote:
"admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures."
We better pay attention or we'll be paying for our apathy and ignorance with our pocketbook.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Fast Lane To The Madhouse
Gene Weingarten thought it would be a good idea to sit in a windowless office at the Washington Post with six TVs, two radios, and a laptop set to rotate regularly through eleven political blogs. He was determined to take in all the information he could through broadcast and punditry for 24 hours in order to become the most informed citizen on the face of the earth. He likened it to trying to drink water from a fire hose. As you can imagine, it was the worst day of his life.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Carbon Credits Not Needed
Oh, about that global warming and carbon dioxide business..........never mind. Scientific evidence doesn't support the conventional wisdom on the matter.
This from The Australian:
This from The Australian:
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Trapped By The Patriot Act
Nice try, liberal pundits, but no cigar. Elliot Spitzer's bank account was investigated using a 1970 act which was put in place to detect money laundering. As usual, it takes Andy McCarthy to brush away the cob webs.
Currency transaction reporting requirements were enacted in the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and money laundering was made a crime in overhaul of the federal narcotics laws that took place in 1986. Believe it or not, Karl Rove did not diabolically dream these provisions up to trap unwary Democrats, nor are they part of George W. Bush's post-9/11 Politics of Fear.
Long before we had an international terrorism problem, these laws were developed to target domestic criminal enterprises (especially organized crime and drug trafficking). The biggest problem many of these syndicates have is hiding the mountains of cash they generate — unexplained wealth being among the best indicators of criminal activity, especially when it comes to the highest-ranking, most insulated crooks. To the extent these laws (and the Treasury Department's implementing regulations) have been beefed up significantly, a lot of that happened during the Clinton administration. (This Treasury Department publication lays out much of the history.)
Currency transaction reporting requirements were enacted in the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and money laundering was made a crime in overhaul of the federal narcotics laws that took place in 1986. Believe it or not, Karl Rove did not diabolically dream these provisions up to trap unwary Democrats, nor are they part of George W. Bush's post-9/11 Politics of Fear.
Long before we had an international terrorism problem, these laws were developed to target domestic criminal enterprises (especially organized crime and drug trafficking). The biggest problem many of these syndicates have is hiding the mountains of cash they generate — unexplained wealth being among the best indicators of criminal activity, especially when it comes to the highest-ranking, most insulated crooks. To the extent these laws (and the Treasury Department's implementing regulations) have been beefed up significantly, a lot of that happened during the Clinton administration. (This Treasury Department publication lays out much of the history.)
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
What Are They Afraid Of?
Some descriptions are used so often, we become deaf to the meaning they convey along the words they're modifying. One of these that's become a pet peeve of mine is "arch" in front of the word conservative as in, "That guy's an arch conservative." This descriptor is especially prevalent in NPR-speak and on MSNBC. The phrase "arch conservative" is throw around to describe anyone who is a Republican, has served in a Republican administration, or voted for Reagan instead of Jimmy Carter. It's usually spoken with a hint of shock or disdain; similar to the way a reporter describes a captured serial murderer or Colombian drug lord. Arch conservative = arch enemy. Batman, Superman, and Spiderman all have arch enemies. Liberals have arch conservatives.
Once when recommending Bill Bennett's morning radio program to a friend who is a liberal, I received the most surprising reaction. Instead of saying he'd give it a listen and see if he liked it, he asked, "Bill Bennett, the arch conservative?" with a horrified look on his face. I said Bill Bennett, the former Democrat who served Ronald Reagan as Education Secretary. Bill Bennett who held a position most conservatives see as overkill in the federal government as there are no federal schools.
Is there such a thing as an arch liberal? If there were, Nancy Pelosi would fit the description, but her name is usually spoken in the same breath as "House Speaker." Couldn't Bill Bennett be referred to as Doctor or Secretary instead of a term that strikes fear into the weak little hearts of liberals everywhere?
Such a reaction and inflammatory reference is laughable. Every time I hear it, I smile my sly conservative smile and laugh my evil conservative laugh and start discussing Jonah Goldberg's NY Times best seller Liberal Fascism.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Once when recommending Bill Bennett's morning radio program to a friend who is a liberal, I received the most surprising reaction. Instead of saying he'd give it a listen and see if he liked it, he asked, "Bill Bennett, the arch conservative?" with a horrified look on his face. I said Bill Bennett, the former Democrat who served Ronald Reagan as Education Secretary. Bill Bennett who held a position most conservatives see as overkill in the federal government as there are no federal schools.
Is there such a thing as an arch liberal? If there were, Nancy Pelosi would fit the description, but her name is usually spoken in the same breath as "House Speaker." Couldn't Bill Bennett be referred to as Doctor or Secretary instead of a term that strikes fear into the weak little hearts of liberals everywhere?
Such a reaction and inflammatory reference is laughable. Every time I hear it, I smile my sly conservative smile and laugh my evil conservative laugh and start discussing Jonah Goldberg's NY Times best seller Liberal Fascism.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Fence
Fence? What fence? I don't see no stinking fence.
Well, it turns out head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has been making it all up. The glowing reports about the progress on the fence, the reassurances that what we taxpayers overwhelmingly want our tax money spent on is being accomplished; all lies. The truth is there's been a lot of time and money wasted and we are no closer to having a border fence than we were six months ago. It's been all talk and no action. Can we dock his pay until he starts doing what he said he was going to do?
Well, it turns out head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has been making it all up. The glowing reports about the progress on the fence, the reassurances that what we taxpayers overwhelmingly want our tax money spent on is being accomplished; all lies. The truth is there's been a lot of time and money wasted and we are no closer to having a border fence than we were six months ago. It's been all talk and no action. Can we dock his pay until he starts doing what he said he was going to do?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
William F. Buckley
A great man's walk on Earth has ended. A man whose mark is just as clear as Cicero's or Pericles'. The number of lives and minds he has touched and will continue to touch for generations is untold and those who knew him said he was the most gracious person they'd ever met.
William Buckley's voice was background noise in the house I grew up in as his show Firing Line and his guest appearances on other shows were never missed. National Review was always lying around on a table or desk. I took all this for granted until one afternoon while I was home from college, I picked up National Review and started flipping through the pages. The writing style in The Week caught my attention first, then the point of view of Mr. Buckley hooked me. I've been a subscriber ever since.
When I heard of his passing this afternoon, it was not a surprise, but I felt as if a close and beloved relative was gone. Then I came home and started reading The Corner and it felt like all my cousins were sharing their fond memories. That feeling of camaraderie must come from the top down. William Buckley has passed on his graciousness to his family, related and otherwise.
Our condolences to Mr. Buckley's family and all those at National Review.
William Buckley's voice was background noise in the house I grew up in as his show Firing Line and his guest appearances on other shows were never missed. National Review was always lying around on a table or desk. I took all this for granted until one afternoon while I was home from college, I picked up National Review and started flipping through the pages. The writing style in The Week caught my attention first, then the point of view of Mr. Buckley hooked me. I've been a subscriber ever since.
When I heard of his passing this afternoon, it was not a surprise, but I felt as if a close and beloved relative was gone. Then I came home and started reading The Corner and it felt like all my cousins were sharing their fond memories. That feeling of camaraderie must come from the top down. William Buckley has passed on his graciousness to his family, related and otherwise.
Our condolences to Mr. Buckley's family and all those at National Review.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Good King, Bad King
The upcoming presidential election reminds me of the lists learned in history class when preparing for a test. The list of Kings of Israel from 1020-587 BC could be summed up by the simple description of "Bad King, Good King". And if I remember my history correctly, the less the people believed in God, the more bad kings they got.
Then there was the list of Roman Emperors post Augustus Caesar. Same thing: Good Emperor, Bad Emperor. And the more dependent the citizens were on public welfare, the more bad emperors they got.
Seeing a pattern here? Are we getting to the point in history where our president's terms can be distilled down to the simple "Good President, Bad President" list? And are we on the path to deserving more bad than good? Frankly, I'm praying for a miracle.
Then there was the list of Roman Emperors post Augustus Caesar. Same thing: Good Emperor, Bad Emperor. And the more dependent the citizens were on public welfare, the more bad emperors they got.
Seeing a pattern here? Are we getting to the point in history where our president's terms can be distilled down to the simple "Good President, Bad President" list? And are we on the path to deserving more bad than good? Frankly, I'm praying for a miracle.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Super Tuesday
Tuesday is voting day for large number of Americans. There's been a huge shift in the polls that favors Mitt Romney. If you are concerned about illegal immigration in our country and you trust John McCain on immigration more than any other candidate, please take a look at Michele Malkin today.
Michele writes and has video of John McCain's stand on illegal immigration as well as the advisors on his staff and their part in the La Raza movement. It's an important read on this very serious issue.
UPDATE: Note to self......remember not to pay attention to polls.
Michele writes and has video of John McCain's stand on illegal immigration as well as the advisors on his staff and their part in the La Raza movement. It's an important read on this very serious issue.
UPDATE: Note to self......remember not to pay attention to polls.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Just got back from voting in the Florida presidential primary. It went very quickly because there were only two things to vote for. When I arrived at about 10:00am, the greeter in the parking lot told me they had seen about 60 people so far. There were three other voters while I was there. On the way home I noticed one Rudy sign and about twenty Romney signs.
I've received so many political phone calls over the past several days. I don't think I've ever gotten a last minute, dirty politics call before but I got one late yesterday afternoon from McCain's campaign. It was set up as a poll but the questions were all negative and untrue statements about Romney. After I refused to answer the first two questions because they were based on false premises, the pollster got a little put out with me. Too bad! Turnabout is fairplay.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Law Enforcement Works
Enforcement of a law prohibiting the hire of illegal immigrants has resulted in Mexicans returning to Mexico and higher wages for skilled American workers. Read the details here.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Hold The Phone
The Republican primary is coming up on Tuesday here in Florida and the phone has been ringing off the hook. I was trying to keep count but lost it at 50 calls. The most telling call was from a polling company working for John McCain's campaign last night. They were asking who our first and second choices were for president. When I said Romney was my first choice, the pollster groaned and said, "Oh no!" Then when I told him I didn't have a second choice (Romney was my second choice) he thanked me and said I was the nicest person he'd talked to all day. I suggested it was because people are sick of all the phone calls. His was the third I'd gotten from the McCain campaign that day. Enough already! If he really want's people to vote for him , he needs to start by being truthful about his Senate record.
UPDATE: More evidence of McCain's arrogance here at Michele Malkin.
UPDATE: More evidence of McCain's arrogance here at Michele Malkin.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Counterfeit News Courtesy of CNN, AP, et al
Did you believe that Yasser Arafat gave blood for 9/11 victims when that AP picture was published? Did you wonder about the HIV/Aids rumors? Or his terrorists leanings? If so, you were right to be skeptical. The truth about the staged photos and who was in on the scam is here.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
You may already be a winner!
Apparently we're already in a recession. You just don't know it yet because the economy is so good. But the newsreaders have to have something to talk about besides the good news coming out of Iraq, so they might as well put a good scare into the electorate about money matters.
Thank goodness we have Larry Kudlow who actually understands economics and can put things in perspective for us. Read all about it.
Thank goodness we have Larry Kudlow who actually understands economics and can put things in perspective for us. Read all about it.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Old Guard
The Republicans have just been going through the motions. Now it's down to the business of "this is the way we've always done it." It's McCain's turn in the old guard's way of doing things and they're lining up behind him. Phil Gramm and Lindsey Graham could be seen with McCain in South Carolina. Last night, Jack Kemp was on Hannity and Combs explaining away all of McCain's left-leaning actions in the Senate. His explanation was everyone makes mistakes.
Here's the list of supporters from McCain's webpage. It's like a Who's Who of politicians from the past twenty years. They'll all be trotted out to explain away the Gang of Fourteen, the Immigration vote, McCain-Feingold deteriorating free speech, not backing President Bush's tax cuts or judicial nominees.
This is the way of thinking that brought on disastrous leadership which ultimately lost the Congress in 2006. The Republican party needs to get back to it's conservative roots that can win a national campaign hands down and govern with proven tenants.
Here's the list of supporters from McCain's webpage. It's like a Who's Who of politicians from the past twenty years. They'll all be trotted out to explain away the Gang of Fourteen, the Immigration vote, McCain-Feingold deteriorating free speech, not backing President Bush's tax cuts or judicial nominees.
This is the way of thinking that brought on disastrous leadership which ultimately lost the Congress in 2006. The Republican party needs to get back to it's conservative roots that can win a national campaign hands down and govern with proven tenants.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Florida Primary
Okay-I'm ready. I'm ready to meet the candidates. shake their hands.......tell them what I'm looking for in a president. The candidates will probably be running over people to convince a woman like me not to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. And I'm sure they're dying to appeal to people like me with family values.
So where are they? Not knocking on my door. Not at the library. Not at the grocery store or church. Not even at Target or the mall (even though they could be picking up fabulous after
Christmas bargains if they were).
I'm here......ready to meet you. I'll even fix you some coffee if you come by. I'll put your sign in my yard, but I won't mess up my car with your bumper sticker.
Where are you?
So where are they? Not knocking on my door. Not at the library. Not at the grocery store or church. Not even at Target or the mall (even though they could be picking up fabulous after
Christmas bargains if they were).
I'm here......ready to meet you. I'll even fix you some coffee if you come by. I'll put your sign in my yard, but I won't mess up my car with your bumper sticker.
Where are you?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
What the......
The mess on The Daily Show Wednesday night cannot be blamed on the writer's strike. The first half of the show consisted of Jon Stewart looking embarrassed while he gave a silly rundown of the acceptance and concession speeches from the Michigan primary. Very unfunny as the silence from the studio audience attested. After the commercial break, Jonah Goldberg was introduced to talk about his book Liberal Fascism. Stewart had obviously not read or even skimmed the book. What followed was six minutes of Jon Stewart asking silly questions based on his uninformed assumptions. Bits and pieces of Goldberg's answers made up the balance, which wasn't much. An embarrassing mess for the Daily Show was the result of trying to shout down a well-written and well-researched book. Kinda fits in with the title.
Stewart could learn something from Tucker Carlson. Here's how it's done
Stewart could learn something from Tucker Carlson. Here's how it's done
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Winner: Thompson
From Fred Thompson's site, this press release.
They Said It Part II: "Winner: Thompson"
Fox News' Frank Luntz: "Clearly it was Fred Thompson who won the debate."
"Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to 'the Natural' to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background." (National Review, 1/10)
"Thompson slams Hucakbee" (Charleston Post and Courier Blog)
"Tonight, Fred Reminded Me of Roy Hobbs" (National Review, 1/10)
"Fred Thompson was funny, biting and energetic. Easily, his smoothest performance.."(NBC, 1/10)
"[T]hey saw a strong presence, from a candidate in control of his facts." (ABC, 1/10)
"I'm guessing...his style played VERY well with South Carolina Republicans." (NBC, 1/10)
"In this debate, Thompson brought the conservative challenge to Huckabee. To the extent that Huckabee was the leader going in; Thompson gained at his expense." (Columbia, SC's TheState.com Blog)
"Fred Thompson turned in another strong debate performance, and Frank Luntz's focus group confirms it." (ABC, 1/10)
"This was Fred Thompson's second strong debate in a row" (Atlantic, 1/10)
"For once I'm in total agreement with Frank Luntz's focus group - they loved Fred." (National Review, 1/10)
They Said It Part II: "Winner: Thompson"
Fox News' Frank Luntz: "Clearly it was Fred Thompson who won the debate."
"Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to 'the Natural' to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background." (National Review, 1/10)
"Thompson slams Hucakbee" (Charleston Post and Courier Blog)
"Tonight, Fred Reminded Me of Roy Hobbs" (National Review, 1/10)
"Fred Thompson was funny, biting and energetic. Easily, his smoothest performance.."(NBC, 1/10)
"[T]hey saw a strong presence, from a candidate in control of his facts." (ABC, 1/10)
"I'm guessing...his style played VERY well with South Carolina Republicans." (NBC, 1/10)
"In this debate, Thompson brought the conservative challenge to Huckabee. To the extent that Huckabee was the leader going in; Thompson gained at his expense." (Columbia, SC's TheState.com Blog)
"Fred Thompson turned in another strong debate performance, and Frank Luntz's focus group confirms it." (ABC, 1/10)
"This was Fred Thompson's second strong debate in a row" (Atlantic, 1/10)
"For once I'm in total agreement with Frank Luntz's focus group - they loved Fred." (National Review, 1/10)
Apparently the New York Times is in agreement and finding voters who realized they are going to vote for Thompson after the debate.
“But then last night — we hadn’t even been thinking about him — all of a sudden it was clear he was the one,” said Mr. Berenberk, a retired teacher. “The bluntness, the forcefulness. He was really impressive.”
Read the NY Times story here.
Thought Police
In Alberta, Canada there's a creeping process through lower levels of bureaucracy to deny Canadians their basic rights by fascistic means. Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the Western Standard is currently being interrogated by the Human Rights Commission for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago. On his blog he's documenting the interrogation and it is shocking to watch. Here's his opening statement.
To see where this kind of government control leads, watch the film Lives Of Others.
To see where this kind of government control leads, watch the film Lives Of Others.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
All The News Money Can Buy
According to the London Times Online, George Soros helped pay for a published study that inflated figures of Iraqis killed as a result of the invasion by ten times. Soros supports Barack Obama for president and is famously from an anti-semitic Jewish family.
A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.
Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.
Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”
The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.
To say George Soros and The Lancet acted unethically is stating the obvious. The real damage is the use of the study and it's findings by countless essays, news articles, and policy papers. A Google search of "650,000 killed by Iraq invasion" has a result of 53,000 references. How many millions read these references and took it at face value? Bringing the lies and deception to light will have little effect. The damage of shaping people's opinions with lies has already been done. I've written more about Soros here and here.
A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.
Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.
Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”
The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.
To say George Soros and The Lancet acted unethically is stating the obvious. The real damage is the use of the study and it's findings by countless essays, news articles, and policy papers. A Google search of "650,000 killed by Iraq invasion" has a result of 53,000 references. How many millions read these references and took it at face value? Bringing the lies and deception to light will have little effect. The damage of shaping people's opinions with lies has already been done. I've written more about Soros here and here.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
I Found Hillary's Voice
Here it is .....remember this voice?She sounds like the kind of woman who wouldn't mind ironing a shirt.
Remember this voice?
Just checking.
Remember this voice?
Just checking.
Monday, January 7, 2008
One More Time
More contrived victimhood from the former first lady. Mary Katherine Ham witnessed it first hand. This all sounds just a little too convenient. Iron My Shirt? Does that sound like it may have come from the same person who thinks baking cookies is demeaning work for a mother? Maybe someone will stand up during a Q&A and call her "little lady" next. That should really bring in the votes.
UPDATE: This was apparently a prank from two radio fellows from Boston. Who planned it is uncertain. Hillary's reaction to the heckling was to ask for the houselights to be turned up so she could see them. Is that a normal reaction to being shouted down?
UPDATE: This was apparently a prank from two radio fellows from Boston. Who planned it is uncertain. Hillary's reaction to the heckling was to ask for the houselights to be turned up so she could see them. Is that a normal reaction to being shouted down?
Not Tongue Tied Any More
This has been a presidential campaign that defies gravity. It's bucking the odds and proving the experts wrong daily. There's so much rhetoric and pomposity flying through the airwaves it's hard to keep up. But thanks to Hillary Clinton dissolving into tears today, I'm not tongue tied anymore.
It's time to get back to first principles; every word can be measured against first principles. But more importantly, every action can be measured against them. Since time immemorial, candidates have blustered on about what they intend to do if elected. Most of these promises never come to fruition because they are beyond the presidents power to affect.
Past statements don't mean much either-everyone changes their mind or position; that's part of maturing as a thinking adult. But actions tell us quite a bit about how far a politician is willing to go to follow their convictions. This pertains to action taken in office, but also to the action of lying, by omission or otherwise. Now a candidate seems to be asking us to vote for her out of pity with crocodile tears..
No one with sense expects sainthood from any of the people who would be president, but we do expect honor, integrity, and sincerity from the person who will be the Commander In Chief of the most powerful nation on earth.
That Commander will not have the luxury of indulging herself in tearful emotional displays while making decisions that affect this generation and many to come. The leaders of other countries will not have the same reaction as a handful of fawning supporters, "Aw, Hill, it's okay, don't cry." No, I imagine some will be rubbing their hands together in glee at this prospect.
For many the election is entertainment, come and gone like the fall TV schedule that fades away by January. This time it's different. This time the stakes are higher. Do we elect a president who recognizes the global threat against our way of life or a president whose idea of change is based on '60's college demonstration slogans?
It's actually pretty easy to wade through all the rhetoric, just measure it against first principles.
It's time to get back to first principles; every word can be measured against first principles. But more importantly, every action can be measured against them. Since time immemorial, candidates have blustered on about what they intend to do if elected. Most of these promises never come to fruition because they are beyond the presidents power to affect.
Past statements don't mean much either-everyone changes their mind or position; that's part of maturing as a thinking adult. But actions tell us quite a bit about how far a politician is willing to go to follow their convictions. This pertains to action taken in office, but also to the action of lying, by omission or otherwise. Now a candidate seems to be asking us to vote for her out of pity with crocodile tears..
No one with sense expects sainthood from any of the people who would be president, but we do expect honor, integrity, and sincerity from the person who will be the Commander In Chief of the most powerful nation on earth.
That Commander will not have the luxury of indulging herself in tearful emotional displays while making decisions that affect this generation and many to come. The leaders of other countries will not have the same reaction as a handful of fawning supporters, "Aw, Hill, it's okay, don't cry." No, I imagine some will be rubbing their hands together in glee at this prospect.
For many the election is entertainment, come and gone like the fall TV schedule that fades away by January. This time it's different. This time the stakes are higher. Do we elect a president who recognizes the global threat against our way of life or a president whose idea of change is based on '60's college demonstration slogans?
It's actually pretty easy to wade through all the rhetoric, just measure it against first principles.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Our Boys
The Sun reports on a successful British attack in Afghanistan Helmand province. Note the use of "Our Boys" when referring to the British soldiers who attacked a Taliban group celebrating the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Our Boys.....kind of has a nice ring to it. If only major American newspapers could use the same kind of fond reference when writing about American military members. Of course, they are far too concerned with their non-biased standing to stoop to such provincial speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)