Director Roman Polanski has finally, finally been arrested and faces extradition. I have no idea why, after 31 years of living anything but under the radar, the authorities decided to arrest him, but they have my support.
Hollywood and the European film circles are beside themselves with indignation. How dare they arrest such a talented man? As Whoopie Goldberg said, it's not like it was "rape-rape". The thing is, that's exactly what it was - rape-rape - two seperate acts - conventional rape and then sodomy.
Whoopie, the producer in her ear, and Hollywood in general are all wrong. The Quualudes and champagne were administered before the rapes, he knew she was underage, and he fled after he pled guilty to a reduced charge of statutory rape but before he was sentenced. Please note how this is contrary to Whoopie's wild allegation that he served his time, got out, and, for some reason a rogue judge was going to put him away again for 100 years.
Or something.
Oh, and Melissa Gilbert wondering where the mom was doesn't fly, either - here they are saying Polanski is innocent when, in fact he is guilty as sin, and yet on the other hand they are trying to blame the mother for not expecting that the same innocent Polanski would rape and sodomize her daughter. What?!?
The fact is, he did the crime, pled guilty, made a bargain, agreed to a settlement, and then fled before doing the time.
He's not coming back to be put on trial, he's coming back to face his sentence.
Hollywood, in their infinite wisdom, once again are revising history. Apparently, a movie like Rosemary's Baby is more valuable than a child's innocence. And Hollywood is okay with that. Heck, some even try to paint Polanski as the victim!
What's worse is that the glitterati are now signing a petition in hopes it will bring the authorities to their senses with the sheer star power of it all. So far, it seems to be backfiring.
Yet again the artistic class tries to make themselves more valuable and above the law than the rest of us. I'd really love to see a boycott of all the signers of that petition. Just because he has managed to evade capture for 31 years doesn't mean he is somehow magically excused from paying for his crime. In fact, for 'mere mortals' like the rest of us, such behavior would mean having to do even more time.
Just a suggestion for Hollywood - you people are so famous for your empathy and sympathy, so why don't you try putting yourself in the shoes of that young girl; drugged, raped, and sodomized by someone she thought she could trust, who she thought was there to help her, not hurt, violate and degrade her. Picture your own daughter or granddaughter in that situation - would you still side with the criminal who did it?
Making movies does not make up for raping a child. Period.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
GRAYSON MUST GO Updated
I am utterly mortified that this man represents my district. He is an absolute embarrassment. This is the same moron who introduced that bill to mandate paid vacation for all businesses with 100+ employees. Because the economic crisis and the raising of the minimum wage (again) hasn't done enough to cripple small businesses, apparently. Don't get me wrong - paid vacation is something my own family enjoys, and I think more people, especially full-timers, should have the same luxury. But is the middle of an economic crisis really the best time to introduce something like this? In my case, our two weeks of paid vacation this year are balanced by two mandatory weeks of unpaid vacation, in an effort to cut costs and retain employees - and this is a very large, international corporation, not a small mom-and-pop. Come on, people, a little common sense, please!
But I digress.
His ridiculous, embarrassing, and just plain wrong tirade on the House floor stoops to a new low. If he actually had a clue, he might have read H.R. 3400, or perhaps S. 1099, or maybe H.R. 2520 or S. 1324. All of those are republican offerings for the health care debate, and all of them are languishing in committee as the democrats rail that the republicans have nothing to offer but 'no'. For a quick overview of the republican bills, click here.
Not a single one of them says 'don't get sick' or 'die quickly'. I'm not really sure where the whole 'die quickly' thing came from - the only thing I can think of is H.R. 3200. They still have not removed the rationing boards (aka 'death panels') from that legislation, so I would assume poor, confused Mr. Grayson came upon section 1233 of H.R. 3200 when he was picking up trash from the floor of the House and thought that such a horrible idea simply must be from republicans.
Calls and emails to his office have no effect, as he smugly assumes anyone who criticizes the democrat ideas are deluded or don't have the facts. Which is really something, considering at his town hall he insisted that he had read the bill (H.R.3200), but was remarkably light on facts about it when challenged.
His town hall meeting in August for health care was stacked with supporters. He held the town hall at a union facility, after a meeting, so that those who had waited outside for hours to get in couldn't because the union members stayed for the town hall. Only 31 people (out of an estimated 1000+) who had been waiting for hours outside were allowed in.
Did I mention he also brought his kids to the town hall and continually used them as a shield when the discussion would get heated - to the point of cutting the meeting short because it was their bedtime?
I am on his email list and the tele-town hall call list. I received an email on Aug. 10th about energy issues (see picture), but not a thing about his then up-coming health care town hall. A few days later, he held a tele-town hall on health care, and, although I have been included in other tele-town halls, I was not included in that one.
I was finally included in a health care related tele-town hall last week, and I found it remarkable that every single caller was pro-reform. Granted, I didn't hear the whole conference call, only the last 45 minutes or so, but, considering the callers were apparently pre-screened before being called on for questions, one would assume if there were differing viewpoints, they would be interspersed with pro-reform questions.
This man is a partisan hack who has no problem lying through his teeth and using any method available to forward his agenda as his ridiculous, childish 'presentation' on the House floor illustrates. The only good he has done so far is his work on auditing the Fed, but that is just not enough. He is more interested in forwarding the far-left agenda of the Obama administration than listening to his constituents. His smug arrogance and patronizing demeanor are offensive, and I for one can't wait to vote him out.
BTW, the cherry on this cake? Mr. Grayson calls himself the "Congressman from ACORN" - they seem to like him, too. That didn't last long, though, because he voted for defunding the organization when the political winds changed. Of course, he is now chasing the 'Bill of Attainder' meme to get out of the vote, stating the defunding was unconstitutional. The jury is still out on this, so I'm sure this will be used as a stall tactic until people lose interest in the story. That way they can say they voted against funding, but, in reality, because the measure never got a presidential signature, no harm was actually done to ACORN. And Mr. Grayson is on the front line of this defense.
Let's make an effort to say good-bye to Mr. Grayson in 2010, shall we?
UPDATE: I'm sure this won't go anywhere, but kudos to Rep. Price (author of H.R. 3400 -The Health Care Freedom Plan) for stepping up. Hopefully in all the hullabalu the details of the republican's real proposals will manage to leak out.
Just a hint - don't hold your breath.
UPDATE II: Oh, this guy has to go. What a putz.
But I digress.
His ridiculous, embarrassing, and just plain wrong tirade on the House floor stoops to a new low. If he actually had a clue, he might have read H.R. 3400, or perhaps S. 1099, or maybe H.R. 2520 or S. 1324. All of those are republican offerings for the health care debate, and all of them are languishing in committee as the democrats rail that the republicans have nothing to offer but 'no'. For a quick overview of the republican bills, click here.
Not a single one of them says 'don't get sick' or 'die quickly'. I'm not really sure where the whole 'die quickly' thing came from - the only thing I can think of is H.R. 3200. They still have not removed the rationing boards (aka 'death panels') from that legislation, so I would assume poor, confused Mr. Grayson came upon section 1233 of H.R. 3200 when he was picking up trash from the floor of the House and thought that such a horrible idea simply must be from republicans.
Calls and emails to his office have no effect, as he smugly assumes anyone who criticizes the democrat ideas are deluded or don't have the facts. Which is really something, considering at his town hall he insisted that he had read the bill (H.R.3200), but was remarkably light on facts about it when challenged.
His town hall meeting in August for health care was stacked with supporters. He held the town hall at a union facility, after a meeting, so that those who had waited outside for hours to get in couldn't because the union members stayed for the town hall. Only 31 people (out of an estimated 1000+) who had been waiting for hours outside were allowed in.
Did I mention he also brought his kids to the town hall and continually used them as a shield when the discussion would get heated - to the point of cutting the meeting short because it was their bedtime?
I am on his email list and the tele-town hall call list. I received an email on Aug. 10th about energy issues (see picture), but not a thing about his then up-coming health care town hall. A few days later, he held a tele-town hall on health care, and, although I have been included in other tele-town halls, I was not included in that one.
I was finally included in a health care related tele-town hall last week, and I found it remarkable that every single caller was pro-reform. Granted, I didn't hear the whole conference call, only the last 45 minutes or so, but, considering the callers were apparently pre-screened before being called on for questions, one would assume if there were differing viewpoints, they would be interspersed with pro-reform questions.
This man is a partisan hack who has no problem lying through his teeth and using any method available to forward his agenda as his ridiculous, childish 'presentation' on the House floor illustrates. The only good he has done so far is his work on auditing the Fed, but that is just not enough. He is more interested in forwarding the far-left agenda of the Obama administration than listening to his constituents. His smug arrogance and patronizing demeanor are offensive, and I for one can't wait to vote him out.
BTW, the cherry on this cake? Mr. Grayson calls himself the "Congressman from ACORN" - they seem to like him, too. That didn't last long, though, because he voted for defunding the organization when the political winds changed. Of course, he is now chasing the 'Bill of Attainder' meme to get out of the vote, stating the defunding was unconstitutional. The jury is still out on this, so I'm sure this will be used as a stall tactic until people lose interest in the story. That way they can say they voted against funding, but, in reality, because the measure never got a presidential signature, no harm was actually done to ACORN. And Mr. Grayson is on the front line of this defense.
Let's make an effort to say good-bye to Mr. Grayson in 2010, shall we?
UPDATE: I'm sure this won't go anywhere, but kudos to Rep. Price (author of H.R. 3400 -The Health Care Freedom Plan) for stepping up. Hopefully in all the hullabalu the details of the republican's real proposals will manage to leak out.
Just a hint - don't hold your breath.
UPDATE II: Oh, this guy has to go. What a putz.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
QUICKIES
First on the hit list today is Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS getting thrown out. It's nice to see that our court system still works. For those not familiar with the case, Rather reported in 2004 on a bogus story that slammed President Bush, via a series of fraudulent memos, as a slacker who avoided serving in Vietnam by joining the Texas Air National Guard. CBS fired four people - three executives and a producer, and Rather apologized on-air and left 60 Minutes in disgrace. He remained at CBS for a while, but was basically retained for appearance sake until his contract ran out. In 2007 he filed suit against CBS for $70 million, claiming he was a scapegoat for CBS, unaware the reports were false and the memos were fraudulent and that he didn't have the time to research them himself.
It later turns out that not only were the memos fake, but, in their attempt to paint Bush as a slacker trying to dodge military service, they neglected to mention that he actually volunteered to go to Vietnam, but was turned down for more experienced pilots.
Rather, a respected newsman, saw a story that would be damaging to Bush's re-election and ran with it. It has been shown that his producer knew the memos were fakes, but their desire to get Bush out of office was apparently stronger than their ethics. The courts got it right.
In other news, terror suspect Najibullah Zazi plead not guilty to conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. Two things disturb me about this case. First, Zazi was a shuttle driver for Denver airport, and second, that he has three possible accomplices that are not yet in custody. At least the authorities have identified them, so hopefully it's just a matter of time before they are picked up. Hopefully they aren't working on a plan B in the meantime.
And, finally, it seems that the loonies have really come out of the woodwork since Obama was elected. It's a little creepy, really. There's the chanting children (one of many, really), as well as NEA's attempt at a nationwide propaganda campaign and countless other creepy things. I'm torn between calling it socialist propaganda and cult worship. Of course, it's not like they are mutually exclusive, so maybe it's a little bit of both.
But this is just a little too far into the cult range. It's a little hard to tell, but it sounds like the first few responses are 'Obama' and the last few are 'Oh God' or a mix of the two. Weird. I also have an issue with Martin Luther King Jr. being called a 'prophet'. Now, he was a truly great man who was horribly taken from us far too soon, but he was no prophet. He was a hero, he was a kind, peaceful leader of men, and he was an invaluable asset to our country, but prophet? I think even he, man of God that he was, would protest that.
Well, if we are going to be immersed in a cult of personality, lets at least have a groovy soundtrack!
It later turns out that not only were the memos fake, but, in their attempt to paint Bush as a slacker trying to dodge military service, they neglected to mention that he actually volunteered to go to Vietnam, but was turned down for more experienced pilots.
Rather, a respected newsman, saw a story that would be damaging to Bush's re-election and ran with it. It has been shown that his producer knew the memos were fakes, but their desire to get Bush out of office was apparently stronger than their ethics. The courts got it right.
In other news, terror suspect Najibullah Zazi plead not guilty to conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. Two things disturb me about this case. First, Zazi was a shuttle driver for Denver airport, and second, that he has three possible accomplices that are not yet in custody. At least the authorities have identified them, so hopefully it's just a matter of time before they are picked up. Hopefully they aren't working on a plan B in the meantime.
And, finally, it seems that the loonies have really come out of the woodwork since Obama was elected. It's a little creepy, really. There's the chanting children (one of many, really), as well as NEA's attempt at a nationwide propaganda campaign and countless other creepy things. I'm torn between calling it socialist propaganda and cult worship. Of course, it's not like they are mutually exclusive, so maybe it's a little bit of both.
But this is just a little too far into the cult range. It's a little hard to tell, but it sounds like the first few responses are 'Obama' and the last few are 'Oh God' or a mix of the two. Weird. I also have an issue with Martin Luther King Jr. being called a 'prophet'. Now, he was a truly great man who was horribly taken from us far too soon, but he was no prophet. He was a hero, he was a kind, peaceful leader of men, and he was an invaluable asset to our country, but prophet? I think even he, man of God that he was, would protest that.
Well, if we are going to be immersed in a cult of personality, lets at least have a groovy soundtrack!
Monday, September 28, 2009
HOW HIGH DOES IT GO?
There is news breaking on American Spectator that Patrick Gaspard, a top Obama White House aide, is also a longtime ACORN operative. The man who now holds the same powerful, influential title as Karl Rove was "chief organizer" Bertha Lewis' political director in New York, and, just to add a little extra zing to his resume, he was also executive VP for political and legislative affairs for SEIU 1199. He was also registered as a lobbyist for SEIU in 2007.
If this guy was in any deeper, he'd need a snorkel.
Democrat response to all things ACORN has been rather reminiscent of cockroaches when the lights are turned on, even going so far as voting in enormous numbers to illustrate their distance. I have an issue with the House vote, however. They attached it to a bill with a few quite questionable 'poison pills'. As usual, Pelosi is taking advantage of a hot issue and passing unpopular stuff on it's coattails. Heaven forbid we have that 'dialogue' they prize so dearly.
The fact that there were some - especially in the Senate, where there was no poison pill - who voted to keep funding ACORN should raise some eyebrows. How many democrats used ACORN to 'get out the vote'? How many of them voted against defunding? Any name that comes up for both questions should be investigated for closer ties.
This organization is deeply vested in the political landscape, and there are many politicians who are deeply involved in the funding and furthering of ACORN's agenda as well. Due to the high level of corruption investigations must be undertaken.
The big question is: How high does it go?
By now, many people know that, back in 1995, Barack Obama represented ACORN in court, trained staff over a 10 year period from 1993-2003, headed Project Vote in 1992, etc, etc, etc. If you are not familiar with his ACORN history, check out this great article by World Net Daily.
His ties are deep, but during the campaign he started to distance himself from the organization, even though he paid them $832,000 to 'get out the vote'.
ACORN is deeply involved in this administration, and this new revelation of Patrick Gaspard's high level appointment shows how deeply Obama is still involved with ACORN.
Isn't it amazing that Watergate, a case of wire-tapping and spying on political opponents, would have such deep repercussions, and yet ACORN's ties to Obama and it's long, long list of corruption, embezzlement, voter fraud and money laundering is something the administration expects to shrug off?
If this guy was in any deeper, he'd need a snorkel.
Democrat response to all things ACORN has been rather reminiscent of cockroaches when the lights are turned on, even going so far as voting in enormous numbers to illustrate their distance. I have an issue with the House vote, however. They attached it to a bill with a few quite questionable 'poison pills'. As usual, Pelosi is taking advantage of a hot issue and passing unpopular stuff on it's coattails. Heaven forbid we have that 'dialogue' they prize so dearly.
The fact that there were some - especially in the Senate, where there was no poison pill - who voted to keep funding ACORN should raise some eyebrows. How many democrats used ACORN to 'get out the vote'? How many of them voted against defunding? Any name that comes up for both questions should be investigated for closer ties.
This organization is deeply vested in the political landscape, and there are many politicians who are deeply involved in the funding and furthering of ACORN's agenda as well. Due to the high level of corruption investigations must be undertaken.
The big question is: How high does it go?
By now, many people know that, back in 1995, Barack Obama represented ACORN in court, trained staff over a 10 year period from 1993-2003, headed Project Vote in 1992, etc, etc, etc. If you are not familiar with his ACORN history, check out this great article by World Net Daily.
His ties are deep, but during the campaign he started to distance himself from the organization, even though he paid them $832,000 to 'get out the vote'.
ACORN is deeply involved in this administration, and this new revelation of Patrick Gaspard's high level appointment shows how deeply Obama is still involved with ACORN.
Isn't it amazing that Watergate, a case of wire-tapping and spying on political opponents, would have such deep repercussions, and yet ACORN's ties to Obama and it's long, long list of corruption, embezzlement, voter fraud and money laundering is something the administration expects to shrug off?
SHOULD WE STAY OR SHOULD WE GO?
Well, all those warm fuzzies I had from Mr. Obama's shrewd playing of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are going...going...gone.
Our Marshmallow-in-Chief is showing his squishy side again, but this time our fine men and women in uniform will pay the price. He has 'back burnered' a troop request, stating that:
""You don't make determinations about resources, and certainly you don't make determinations about sending young men and women into battle without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be." "
So let me get this straight: he's been in office for nine months, increased troop levels by more than 17,000 back in February, launched a new offensive and replaced generals on the ground, but still doesn't have a plan yet?!
Seriously?
Maybe he is unaware of the unprecedented level of casualties our troops have been suffering. Perhaps he thinks that leaving them in the field, under funded, under manned, and under estimated is a viable option while he flits from city to city speechifying about everything from health care to inspiring our youth to a nuclear-free utopia, not to mention his whirlwind Sunday chatfest marathon of saying the exact same thing five different ways.
There's no rush, after all.
Did you know that as soon as he decides to increase levels, all our Anointed One has to do is snap his oh so nimble fingers and - voila! - the troops are in the field and ready to go. No recruiting, training, transporting or staging required! It's not like a request made now wouldn't be delivered until, say, January or February.
No rush, though, no rush.
It's obvious you have weightier issues on your mind.
Take your time. It's not like lives depend on your decision....
Choose your position, sir, and stand by it. If you choose withdrawal, do it quickly, so no more lives are lost.
But if victory is your goal, then man them, fully fund them, and let the generals do their jobs. McChrystal knows that it's not just about winning battles - it's about winning the hearts and minds of the civilians, showing them what freedom can bring. Talk to your generals.
We are America - if we set our minds to winning, we will win.
Of all the enemies that deserved to be beaten, the Taliban is second only to the Third Reich.
How did we beat the Reich? Determination, sacrifice, support and the deep-seated belief that we were doing what was right and good. We were not left or right, we were Americans. We did not start the fight, but we sure did finish it, didn't we?
We can do it again. Just give us the chance.
Our Marshmallow-in-Chief is showing his squishy side again, but this time our fine men and women in uniform will pay the price. He has 'back burnered' a troop request, stating that:
""You don't make determinations about resources, and certainly you don't make determinations about sending young men and women into battle without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be." "
So let me get this straight: he's been in office for nine months, increased troop levels by more than 17,000 back in February, launched a new offensive and replaced generals on the ground, but still doesn't have a plan yet?!
Seriously?
Maybe he is unaware of the unprecedented level of casualties our troops have been suffering. Perhaps he thinks that leaving them in the field, under funded, under manned, and under estimated is a viable option while he flits from city to city speechifying about everything from health care to inspiring our youth to a nuclear-free utopia, not to mention his whirlwind Sunday chatfest marathon of saying the exact same thing five different ways.
There's no rush, after all.
Did you know that as soon as he decides to increase levels, all our Anointed One has to do is snap his oh so nimble fingers and - voila! - the troops are in the field and ready to go. No recruiting, training, transporting or staging required! It's not like a request made now wouldn't be delivered until, say, January or February.
No rush, though, no rush.
It's obvious you have weightier issues on your mind.
Take your time. It's not like lives depend on your decision....
Choose your position, sir, and stand by it. If you choose withdrawal, do it quickly, so no more lives are lost.
But if victory is your goal, then man them, fully fund them, and let the generals do their jobs. McChrystal knows that it's not just about winning battles - it's about winning the hearts and minds of the civilians, showing them what freedom can bring. Talk to your generals.
We are America - if we set our minds to winning, we will win.
Of all the enemies that deserved to be beaten, the Taliban is second only to the Third Reich.
How did we beat the Reich? Determination, sacrifice, support and the deep-seated belief that we were doing what was right and good. We were not left or right, we were Americans. We did not start the fight, but we sure did finish it, didn't we?
We can do it again. Just give us the chance.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
LET LOOSE THE FLOODGATES
A few weeks ago, our esteemed president promised that no illegals would be covered under ObamaCare, and was called out by Rep. Wilson as a liar. It now turns out that, in the strictest sense, Obama wasn't lying, because it seems that his next step in 'transforming' our country involves amnesty (although I'm sure it won't be called that), so that all those poor illegals will no longer be illegal and thus will be eligible for health care and a major crisis will be averted.
Apparently, coming here legally and getting a real (legal, taxpaying) job is too much to ask.
Those who come to this country legally and overstay their welcome should be assisted in obtaining citizenship, but those who came here illegally, be it via desert, raft or tunnel, should be returned to where they came from and apply for legal status through the proper channels. Those who overstayed their welcome are at least documented as being in the country, and, in these terror-filled times, that is important.
The problem is, amnesty and free health care for 12 million isn't the end of it.
Now our esteemed leader is starting a campaign of decreasing our presence at the borders. Via CNS News:
"(CNSNews.com) - Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week--as I first reported in my column yesterday--that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1. "
Apparently, the democrats have been paying attention to the polls.
It seems they have decided that their best course of action is to open up the borders and offer amnesty and free health care in order to buy votes, since it seems they have managed to alienate just about every other voting block in the country.
This proposal, just like the mess they are calling health care 'reform' and Cap and Tax, must not be allowed to pass. Luckily, they only need to be held off for a few more months. Once the election season starts in January, they will be too busy campaigning to actually get any work done.
Thank God.
You know, I remember a time when Americans would complain that nothing was getting done in Washington.
Be careful what you wish for, huh?
Apparently, coming here legally and getting a real (legal, taxpaying) job is too much to ask.
Those who come to this country legally and overstay their welcome should be assisted in obtaining citizenship, but those who came here illegally, be it via desert, raft or tunnel, should be returned to where they came from and apply for legal status through the proper channels. Those who overstayed their welcome are at least documented as being in the country, and, in these terror-filled times, that is important.
The problem is, amnesty and free health care for 12 million isn't the end of it.
Now our esteemed leader is starting a campaign of decreasing our presence at the borders. Via CNS News:
"(CNSNews.com) - Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week--as I first reported in my column yesterday--that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1. "
Apparently, the democrats have been paying attention to the polls.
It seems they have decided that their best course of action is to open up the borders and offer amnesty and free health care in order to buy votes, since it seems they have managed to alienate just about every other voting block in the country.
This proposal, just like the mess they are calling health care 'reform' and Cap and Tax, must not be allowed to pass. Luckily, they only need to be held off for a few more months. Once the election season starts in January, they will be too busy campaigning to actually get any work done.
Thank God.
You know, I remember a time when Americans would complain that nothing was getting done in Washington.
Be careful what you wish for, huh?
Friday, September 25, 2009
THE CALIFORNIA MICROCOSM
There are those of us who have been a bit riled up over the drastic increase in government since President Obama took office, and feel that government should be small and not intrude into everyday life (not to mention our free markets) too much. Those on the left saw fit to ridicule us and reiterate how necessary it is for a prosperous country to have a large, strong, omnipotent government dictating and regulating all facets of American life.
So who is right?
Well, if California is anything to go by, I'd have to say that the left are not just wrong, but delusional. A study of regulation and bureaucracy by California State University at Sacramento (a state-run school, not a private entity, by the way) found that a major reason for the economic collapse of the state is due directly to the ridiculous amount of regulation involved. To the tune of nearly $500 Billion.
Imagine the tab if they manage to 'fundamentally transform' the rest of the country in California's image. Considering it seems like San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the domestic agenda, that possibility isn't as remote as most of us would like.
As the trendy folk might say, we're Californicated.
Check out the whole report here.
So who is right?
Well, if California is anything to go by, I'd have to say that the left are not just wrong, but delusional. A study of regulation and bureaucracy by California State University at Sacramento (a state-run school, not a private entity, by the way) found that a major reason for the economic collapse of the state is due directly to the ridiculous amount of regulation involved. To the tune of nearly $500 Billion.
Imagine the tab if they manage to 'fundamentally transform' the rest of the country in California's image. Considering it seems like San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the domestic agenda, that possibility isn't as remote as most of us would like.
As the trendy folk might say, we're Californicated.
Check out the whole report here.
OBAMA TRUMPS AHMADINEJAD
Lots of things happening today, but I want to focus on one in particular. Today President Obama announced that Iran has been building a second, secret, uranium enrichment facility just outside the ancient religious city of Qom, and that they have known about it for 2 years.
Wow.
Now, I have to hand it to Obama on this one. He learned about the facility during his transition, but sat on the information, preferring instead to try his own unique brand of diplomacy. But now he has Ahmadinejad back on his heels. He went from 'Obama is mistaken', to 'oh, that plant - yeah, hey, I was just going to notify you guys about it and have the inspectors come out! Really!!' (BTW, I love how he says he never hid the facility. Um, so why is it in the middle of nowhere in an underground tunnel again?)
It will be interesting to see what happens Oct. 1, when talks have been set between the U.S., Iran, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany. Overall, though, I have to say it was a good move on Obama's part. Now we have to see how he does on the follow through. It was fun keeping tabs on Ahmadinejad's reactions and statements today. The little guy went from strutting peacock to self-righteous choirboy to subdued (if a bit petulant and whiny) defiance. Seems to me that at some point he must have started wondering what, exactly, has been getting aimed in his direction over the past two years....
For the most part, I have felt that Obama has been living in a dream world as far as diplomacy goes. Yesterday, for example, the UN Security Council unanimously reaffirmed their goal of a world without nuclear weapons in a meeting Obama chaired. Hey, I'm all for nuclear disarmament - as soon as our enemies disarm and/or stop trying to arm themselves first. Let's face it - you just can't put the genie back in the bottle, no matter how hard you might wish to.
Now, I know someone has to lay down the sword first, but, honestly, the people we are dealing with are the people who cheered 9/11 and celebrated the return of a terrorist. Call me a cynic, but I'm pretty sure all those petty dictators out there are just waiting for the opportunity to take a swing at us as we're disarming. The fact that Ahmadinejad was building this thing on the sly, using a religious site as cover should speak volumes.
Former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger isn't too hopeful about Obama's resolve, but, after his announcement today, and his refusal to rule out a military option, I'm a tiny bit more optimistic that maybe, just maybe, he's a little bit of a cynic, too.
I sure hope so.
Wow.
Now, I have to hand it to Obama on this one. He learned about the facility during his transition, but sat on the information, preferring instead to try his own unique brand of diplomacy. But now he has Ahmadinejad back on his heels. He went from 'Obama is mistaken', to 'oh, that plant - yeah, hey, I was just going to notify you guys about it and have the inspectors come out! Really!!' (BTW, I love how he says he never hid the facility. Um, so why is it in the middle of nowhere in an underground tunnel again?)
It will be interesting to see what happens Oct. 1, when talks have been set between the U.S., Iran, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany. Overall, though, I have to say it was a good move on Obama's part. Now we have to see how he does on the follow through. It was fun keeping tabs on Ahmadinejad's reactions and statements today. The little guy went from strutting peacock to self-righteous choirboy to subdued (if a bit petulant and whiny) defiance. Seems to me that at some point he must have started wondering what, exactly, has been getting aimed in his direction over the past two years....
For the most part, I have felt that Obama has been living in a dream world as far as diplomacy goes. Yesterday, for example, the UN Security Council unanimously reaffirmed their goal of a world without nuclear weapons in a meeting Obama chaired. Hey, I'm all for nuclear disarmament - as soon as our enemies disarm and/or stop trying to arm themselves first. Let's face it - you just can't put the genie back in the bottle, no matter how hard you might wish to.
Now, I know someone has to lay down the sword first, but, honestly, the people we are dealing with are the people who cheered 9/11 and celebrated the return of a terrorist. Call me a cynic, but I'm pretty sure all those petty dictators out there are just waiting for the opportunity to take a swing at us as we're disarming. The fact that Ahmadinejad was building this thing on the sly, using a religious site as cover should speak volumes.
Former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger isn't too hopeful about Obama's resolve, but, after his announcement today, and his refusal to rule out a military option, I'm a tiny bit more optimistic that maybe, just maybe, he's a little bit of a cynic, too.
I sure hope so.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
ACORN SUES Updated
This is just great. ACORN and the two Maryland employees who were on camera and eventually fired are filing suit against Giles, O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart because of the hidden camera expose.
Why is this great news?
Because ACORN and the employees really don't have a leg to stand on, and may actually harm themselves because filing suit opens their organization up to scrutiny.
There is talk that they are going to go after Fox News, too, for playing the videos, which is also why they included Breitbart in the suit. I know there is more money in Fox's pockets, but they have no right to sue them - all they did was air an expose. It happens all the time - heck, 60 Minutes were constantly doing hidden camera exposes with their reporters. This is like suing the Washington Post for printing the Watergate story. Nixon would have had more of a case than ACORN, though, because at least Woodward and Bernstein worked for the Post. Giles and O'Keefe were completely freelance when they made the videos. They became Breitbart's employees after the stings. So why is it suddenly a big no-no?
Three reasons. First, Giles and O'Keefe exposed a far-left organization - how dare they? That was their biggest mistake. If they had exposed, say, the Heritage Foundation, I'm sure they would already by nominated for Pulitzers.
Second, it makes those drooling lapdogs in the press look really, really bad.
Third, ACORN has a lot of connections. There are plenty of people who don't want ACORN's books - or anything about ACORN, really - to become public record. Investigations of any kind are frowned on.
I think this is either going to get thrown out, or ACORN will try to quietly withdraw the suit once they realize what a huge mistake they just made.
BTW - while I was researching this post, I came across an interesting little article about charity. It seems that, at least in this country, some people walk the walk and some people just talk the talk. So....those who constantly squawk about 'service' and 'community' and being their brother's keepers should maybe zip it and practice what they preach. This poll proves that personal initiative always outstrips mandates.
UPDATE: Hannah Giles has just started up a legal defense fund. I'll post O'Keefe's when he sets one up.
Why is this great news?
Because ACORN and the employees really don't have a leg to stand on, and may actually harm themselves because filing suit opens their organization up to scrutiny.
There is talk that they are going to go after Fox News, too, for playing the videos, which is also why they included Breitbart in the suit. I know there is more money in Fox's pockets, but they have no right to sue them - all they did was air an expose. It happens all the time - heck, 60 Minutes were constantly doing hidden camera exposes with their reporters. This is like suing the Washington Post for printing the Watergate story. Nixon would have had more of a case than ACORN, though, because at least Woodward and Bernstein worked for the Post. Giles and O'Keefe were completely freelance when they made the videos. They became Breitbart's employees after the stings. So why is it suddenly a big no-no?
Three reasons. First, Giles and O'Keefe exposed a far-left organization - how dare they? That was their biggest mistake. If they had exposed, say, the Heritage Foundation, I'm sure they would already by nominated for Pulitzers.
Second, it makes those drooling lapdogs in the press look really, really bad.
Third, ACORN has a lot of connections. There are plenty of people who don't want ACORN's books - or anything about ACORN, really - to become public record. Investigations of any kind are frowned on.
I think this is either going to get thrown out, or ACORN will try to quietly withdraw the suit once they realize what a huge mistake they just made.
BTW - while I was researching this post, I came across an interesting little article about charity. It seems that, at least in this country, some people walk the walk and some people just talk the talk. So....those who constantly squawk about 'service' and 'community' and being their brother's keepers should maybe zip it and practice what they preach. This poll proves that personal initiative always outstrips mandates.
UPDATE: Hannah Giles has just started up a legal defense fund. I'll post O'Keefe's when he sets one up.
Monday, September 21, 2009
CROWDER AT BERKELEY
From PJTV.com, Steven Crowder takes a trip to U.C. Berkeley.
A.K.A. Entry #1 on my list of colleges my children will not be going to.
My personal favorite idiot? The one who thinks our Founding Fathers overreacted.
I'm not surprised they didn't know Lincoln was a Republican. I would imagine that it just doesn't compute - how can their favorite president be a republican? Well, except that one girl who was trying to say it was a different Republican party. Hmmmm. Really? I guess that's how she rationalizes that the modern Democrat party is a different one from the one whose members, after they lost the civil war would, on occasion, dress in hoods and 'raise a little hell'. Sounds like Advanced Polar Reversal Theory of Political Ideology, maybe.
She must have just come from Revisionist History 101.
Oh, and Benjamin Franklin is my favorite Founding Father - and my favorite dollar bill - hey, maybe she thinks he is a (dead) president because he's on the money....
I fear for the future.
A.K.A. Entry #1 on my list of colleges my children will not be going to.
My personal favorite idiot? The one who thinks our Founding Fathers overreacted.
I'm not surprised they didn't know Lincoln was a Republican. I would imagine that it just doesn't compute - how can their favorite president be a republican? Well, except that one girl who was trying to say it was a different Republican party. Hmmmm. Really? I guess that's how she rationalizes that the modern Democrat party is a different one from the one whose members, after they lost the civil war would, on occasion, dress in hoods and 'raise a little hell'. Sounds like Advanced Polar Reversal Theory of Political Ideology, maybe.
She must have just come from Revisionist History 101.
Oh, and Benjamin Franklin is my favorite Founding Father - and my favorite dollar bill - hey, maybe she thinks he is a (dead) president because he's on the money....
I fear for the future.
NEA NO-NO
I first read about a conference call to the National Endowment for the Arts a few weeks ago. It has been flying under the radar because of ACORN and the health care 'debate', but it is time it gets some attention. Why now? Because there is more afoot than just a phone call.
First of all, why should a conference call with the NEA be of concern? Well, the topic of the call was how the various artists funded by the NEA (which, in turn, is funded by our taxpayer dollars), could help the Obama administration 'get the word out' about the president and some of his major policies that the administration is pushing, such as health care and cap and trade.
This is a big no-no - taxpayer dollars are not allowed to be used to push political agendas. This is one of the big beefs people have with ACORN (yes, it all does come back to ACORN!), and for good reason. Watering the weeds of far-left organizations from the seemingly bottomless, yet ever drier well of taxpayer funding is a bad thing - our very own grass roots are feeling the pain of it already.
For the Executive Office to initiate a phone call to the National Endowment for the Arts to work with them on a campaign to help pass legislation is questionable, at best.
No matter how you slice it, it's propaganda, pure and simple.
Now the administration wants to 'set up guidelines' to make sure something like this never happens again. What bothers me about this is that their statement implies ignorance of the rules. But this quote from Yosi Sargent, the (now ex-) NEA representative from the actual phone call, tells a different story (emphasis mine):
""This is just the beginning," Sergant says on the call. "This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally. We're still trying to figure out the laws of putting government websites of Facebook and the use of Twitter. This is all being sorted out. We are participating in history as it's being made, so bear with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely. And we can really work together to move the needle to get stuff done.""
They knew that what they were setting up was illegal, and they were/are in the process of finding ways around those laws.
Tweaking the system, you might say.
So now the administration is 'setting up guidelines'. Hey, I've got a guideline for you, champ - don't dictate to artists what propaganda you need them to produce. Not even suggestions. In my opinion, political art should automatically be exempt from governmental funding, period. That is what private sponsors are for.
The left collectively roll their eyes when some point to the socialist (progressive, thankyouverymuch) theme this administration seems to be adopting and try to shame their critics, claiming paranoia and ridiculousness. But then something like this comes to light, and all those niggling doubts come back to the fore. This, in combination with an unprecedented power-grab and in-the-tank media harkens back to eastern European socialist bloc countries of days gone by.
The media, for the most part, has already morphed into Pravda West, merely taking dictation from the White House and Congress instead of reporting news, and now our art communities are working on their very best Leni Riefenstahl impressions.
No, I'm not calling Obama Hitler. Those crazy Lyndon LaRouche democrats seem to have cornered that market. However, Leni was propagandizing a socialist utopia, and quite magnificently, too.
It just seems as though this attempt at propagandizing our art communities is yet another check mark on some list.
Doesn't the fact that they knew this wasn't allowed, and yet still tried to do it anyway say anything?
Propaganda is priceless, especially when one is promoting the Cult of Personality.
First of all, why should a conference call with the NEA be of concern? Well, the topic of the call was how the various artists funded by the NEA (which, in turn, is funded by our taxpayer dollars), could help the Obama administration 'get the word out' about the president and some of his major policies that the administration is pushing, such as health care and cap and trade.
This is a big no-no - taxpayer dollars are not allowed to be used to push political agendas. This is one of the big beefs people have with ACORN (yes, it all does come back to ACORN!), and for good reason. Watering the weeds of far-left organizations from the seemingly bottomless, yet ever drier well of taxpayer funding is a bad thing - our very own grass roots are feeling the pain of it already.
For the Executive Office to initiate a phone call to the National Endowment for the Arts to work with them on a campaign to help pass legislation is questionable, at best.
No matter how you slice it, it's propaganda, pure and simple.
Now the administration wants to 'set up guidelines' to make sure something like this never happens again. What bothers me about this is that their statement implies ignorance of the rules. But this quote from Yosi Sargent, the (now ex-) NEA representative from the actual phone call, tells a different story (emphasis mine):
""This is just the beginning," Sergant says on the call. "This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally. We're still trying to figure out the laws of putting government websites of Facebook and the use of Twitter. This is all being sorted out. We are participating in history as it's being made, so bear with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely. And we can really work together to move the needle to get stuff done.""
They knew that what they were setting up was illegal, and they were/are in the process of finding ways around those laws.
Tweaking the system, you might say.
So now the administration is 'setting up guidelines'. Hey, I've got a guideline for you, champ - don't dictate to artists what propaganda you need them to produce. Not even suggestions. In my opinion, political art should automatically be exempt from governmental funding, period. That is what private sponsors are for.
The left collectively roll their eyes when some point to the socialist (progressive, thankyouverymuch) theme this administration seems to be adopting and try to shame their critics, claiming paranoia and ridiculousness. But then something like this comes to light, and all those niggling doubts come back to the fore. This, in combination with an unprecedented power-grab and in-the-tank media harkens back to eastern European socialist bloc countries of days gone by.
The media, for the most part, has already morphed into Pravda West, merely taking dictation from the White House and Congress instead of reporting news, and now our art communities are working on their very best Leni Riefenstahl impressions.
No, I'm not calling Obama Hitler. Those crazy Lyndon LaRouche democrats seem to have cornered that market. However, Leni was propagandizing a socialist utopia, and quite magnificently, too.
It just seems as though this attempt at propagandizing our art communities is yet another check mark on some list.
Doesn't the fact that they knew this wasn't allowed, and yet still tried to do it anyway say anything?
Propaganda is priceless, especially when one is promoting the Cult of Personality.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
UNINVOLVED AND UNAWARE
I saw a quote today from a White House senior official in regards to a letter that was sent to Gov. Paterson of NY that urged him to not run for re-election. The official stated that, "President Obama is not involved in any way. There are officials in the White House that share the concerns that are widely held in NY about the very challenging political environment confronting Gov. Paterson. Nobody asked him to get out of the race. It is Governor Paterson's decision to make. We're confident he'll make the decision based on the best interests of the state."
Why did this quote stand out? Aside from the bully overtones - 'We're confident he'll make the decision based on the best interests of the state', what really drew my attention was the 'President Obama is not involved in any way.'
On reflection, we hear that line a lot these days, in some version or other - he also was 'not involved' in the Blagojevich scandal or the CIA interrogation probes. More often than not, though, he us just simply 'not aware'.
Take, for example, his comments on ACORN:
" You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money."
Or former IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich:
"I had no contact with the governor or his office so I was not aware of what was happening. As I said it is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment"
The Tea Party protests:
""The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties and will hold his own event today," "
If you think about it, this is not a new thing. He had similar problems with obliviousness on the campaign trail.
His Aunt Zeituni and her illegal status:
""Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed"".
William Ayers:
"On Monday, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod said Obama was not aware of Ayers' terrorist background when he attended a political coffee at Ayers Hyde Park home at the beginning of his state senate race sometime in the fall of 1995."
And, of course, Rev. Wright:
"Obama has said he was unaware Wright had said “goddamn America,” blamed the government for infecting the black population with AIDS or made other controversial statements in his sermons in a highly billed speech on race and religion and in other appearances. "
There is also the:
Air Force One Flyover
Stock conflicts
Town Hall 9/12 protest in Washington D.C.
AIG bonuses
Is it just me or is the obliviousness of this administration breathtaking? It just seems that lately the only things they are aware of is what they are not involved in.
Why did this quote stand out? Aside from the bully overtones - 'We're confident he'll make the decision based on the best interests of the state', what really drew my attention was the 'President Obama is not involved in any way.'
On reflection, we hear that line a lot these days, in some version or other - he also was 'not involved' in the Blagojevich scandal or the CIA interrogation probes. More often than not, though, he us just simply 'not aware'.
Take, for example, his comments on ACORN:
" You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money."
Or former IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich:
"I had no contact with the governor or his office so I was not aware of what was happening. As I said it is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment"
The Tea Party protests:
""The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties and will hold his own event today," "
If you think about it, this is not a new thing. He had similar problems with obliviousness on the campaign trail.
His Aunt Zeituni and her illegal status:
""Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed"".
William Ayers:
"On Monday, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod said Obama was not aware of Ayers' terrorist background when he attended a political coffee at Ayers Hyde Park home at the beginning of his state senate race sometime in the fall of 1995."
And, of course, Rev. Wright:
"Obama has said he was unaware Wright had said “goddamn America,” blamed the government for infecting the black population with AIDS or made other controversial statements in his sermons in a highly billed speech on race and religion and in other appearances. "
There is also the:
Air Force One Flyover
Stock conflicts
Town Hall 9/12 protest in Washington D.C.
AIG bonuses
Is it just me or is the obliviousness of this administration breathtaking? It just seems that lately the only things they are aware of is what they are not involved in.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
QUICKIES
Two quickies for you:
First, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is claiming that the proposed defunding of ACORN is unconstitutional. He claims that it is in violation of the prohibition on Bills of Attainder - something that covers individuals or groups of individuals, not corporations or organizations.
Either he's a hypocrite of epic proportions, or just completely clueless. It turns out he voted FOR the 90% confiscatory tax for AIG executives - something that is a clear violation of Bills of Attainder - the seizing of a private individuals personal property without a trial.
The second thing is an interview Chris Wallace did with Bill O'Reilly. He discusses the, oh, shall we say...sensitivity of the White House.
Love it!
First, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is claiming that the proposed defunding of ACORN is unconstitutional. He claims that it is in violation of the prohibition on Bills of Attainder - something that covers individuals or groups of individuals, not corporations or organizations.
Either he's a hypocrite of epic proportions, or just completely clueless. It turns out he voted FOR the 90% confiscatory tax for AIG executives - something that is a clear violation of Bills of Attainder - the seizing of a private individuals personal property without a trial.
The second thing is an interview Chris Wallace did with Bill O'Reilly. He discusses the, oh, shall we say...sensitivity of the White House.
Love it!
IBD/TIPP SHOCKER
Proving they have the tenacity and single-mindedness of a pit bull, the Obama administration is once again trying to rally the troops to pass ObamaCare. There is a full court press going on right now, but the ACORN scandal has sucked all the oxygen out of the room, so little attention is being paid to reports like this stunning IBD/TIPP poll.
The administration insists that there will be no rationing of care (death panels, if you prefer Palinese). Even with every doctor and nurse practicing now, there will most definitely be rationing when 47 million (or is it 30 million - the numbers keep changing) are added to the insurance rolls. This will not cut down on emergency room visits - one of the many reasons health care is so costly - just the opposite, actually. It will take months to see a general practitioner, so people will instead prefer to spend hours waiting their turn at the ER.
The IBD poll, showing a full 45% of our doctors would retire upon adoption of ObamaCare, proves adoption will put us immediately into crisis. This country already has a nursing crisis, as well as a shortage of general practitioners, and that crisis will become a catastrophe if what the IBD poll predicts will happen really does.
This poll is remarkably damaging to ObamaCare, so it is no surprise that it is getting little play. The poll finds many results in complete opposition to what the administration - and the AMA, for that matter - has been saying:
The administration insists that there will be no rationing of care (death panels, if you prefer Palinese). Even with every doctor and nurse practicing now, there will most definitely be rationing when 47 million (or is it 30 million - the numbers keep changing) are added to the insurance rolls. This will not cut down on emergency room visits - one of the many reasons health care is so costly - just the opposite, actually. It will take months to see a general practitioner, so people will instead prefer to spend hours waiting their turn at the ER.
The IBD poll, showing a full 45% of our doctors would retire upon adoption of ObamaCare, proves adoption will put us immediately into crisis. This country already has a nursing crisis, as well as a shortage of general practitioners, and that crisis will become a catastrophe if what the IBD poll predicts will happen really does.
This poll is remarkably damaging to ObamaCare, so it is no surprise that it is getting little play. The poll finds many results in complete opposition to what the administration - and the AMA, for that matter - has been saying:
- More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."
- Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.
- Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.
The American Medical Association (AMA) has been cheer leading the efforts of the Obama administration, including lobbying and advertising to sway public opinion. However, the AMA only represents about 18% of doctors, and has been losing support amongst those still members of the organization. The public view has been that doctors are behind ObamaCare, but nothing could be further from the truth.
None of this information seems to have slowed the ObamaCare express one iota, which is truly troubling. The purpose of this plan was to help the American people who have no health coverage. The result of the plan will be that even more people will be unable to access a doctor when they need one. And yet, the administration still plows ahead, even when the experts, practicing doctors, tell them it is a mistake.
Just this fact alone makes one wonder - even though it is becoming more and more clear that this plan will do more harm than good to the country, both economically and in terms of quality and quantity of care, why is the administration so adamant to pass it?
Seems to me to have more to do with power over one-sixth of the American economy than caring for the American people.
But, if the opinion of doctors in the field doesn't matter, what does my lowly opinion mean?
Good thing there are a few million other voices joining mine, and, with the downfall of ACORN imminent, a midterm election turnover is looking better and better. If congress doesn't pass a health care bill by November, it most likely won't pass at all, because they will be too busy campaigning to keep their seats next year.
After all, re-election is far more important than forwarding the business of the country, and, for once, that will work in our favor!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
BATTLING THE HYDRA
The ACORN video scandal is picking up speed. Today, the House voted to defund the organization, which is following on the heels of the Senate vote two days ago. Now we need a combined bill that can be sent to the President to sign. I'll be interested in the reaction by ACORN if that happens.
Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) scurries like a cockroach from being questioned about his ACORN vote by Fox News. I foresee a lot of scurrying in the coming months! I wonder how many on the Hill are popping Xanax like Tic-Tacs these days....I know these developments have put a major damper on re-election efforts for many democrats. If I had a say in things, I would investigate the 7 senators and 75 congresspeople who voted against defunding, to see how closely they are tied to ACORN. But, considering our 111th Congress won't even launch an investigation into Rangel's well documented misdeeds, I'm pretty sure they won't look into congressional ACORN ties.
CA Governator Schwarzenegger has called for a statewide investigation into ACORN, along with MN Governor Pawlenty. No comment from NY Governor Paterson, but at least his Attorney General, Cuomo, is on the ball. Interesting how there are no calls for investigations in Maryland or D.C., where it all started - well, aside from a call to investigate the journalists.
All of this bruhaha over the housing branch has overshadowed the original investigations on ACORN - the voter registration investigations. There are investigations ongoing in 14 states, but the one to keep an eye on is the one in Nevada. Where, interestingly enough, Harry Reid is tanking in the polls. Huh. What are the odds? Anyway, in Nevada, they are taking the allegations of a '21 Club' very seriously. Their investigation looks to be the first to go to trial, and will be a test case for the others.
But what about the rest? ACORN is closely tied to over 200 other organizations, such as CCI, which is the funnel that pours taxpayer dollars into the money laundering machine that is ACORN. In a report by Republican investigators to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, they state:
""Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators," the report said. Structurally, it is "a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act.""
ACORN is like the Hydra of Greek mythology. When you cut off one part of the organization, two more step up to take it's place. Cut off funding to one area, and it will draw money from another. Hercules finally defeated the Hydra by cauterizing the stumps after he cut off the heads. That is what we need to do, and our government has taken up the firebrand by voting, in both houses, to cut off funding. The states are starting to fight back, too, but there needs to be a comprehensive attack on all branches of ACORN and all of its affiliates with a combination of investigation and defunding.
ACORN is trying to get out in front of this scandal by implementing their own 'investigation', in hopes that it will keep anyone else from doing it. This must not be allowed to be the only investigation of ACORN. This is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.
There are over 200 heads on this hydra, so the job won't be easy or quick, but it must be done.
The beast is wounded; now is the time to finish it off.
Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) scurries like a cockroach from being questioned about his ACORN vote by Fox News. I foresee a lot of scurrying in the coming months! I wonder how many on the Hill are popping Xanax like Tic-Tacs these days....I know these developments have put a major damper on re-election efforts for many democrats. If I had a say in things, I would investigate the 7 senators and 75 congresspeople who voted against defunding, to see how closely they are tied to ACORN. But, considering our 111th Congress won't even launch an investigation into Rangel's well documented misdeeds, I'm pretty sure they won't look into congressional ACORN ties.
CA Governator Schwarzenegger has called for a statewide investigation into ACORN, along with MN Governor Pawlenty. No comment from NY Governor Paterson, but at least his Attorney General, Cuomo, is on the ball. Interesting how there are no calls for investigations in Maryland or D.C., where it all started - well, aside from a call to investigate the journalists.
All of this bruhaha over the housing branch has overshadowed the original investigations on ACORN - the voter registration investigations. There are investigations ongoing in 14 states, but the one to keep an eye on is the one in Nevada. Where, interestingly enough, Harry Reid is tanking in the polls. Huh. What are the odds? Anyway, in Nevada, they are taking the allegations of a '21 Club' very seriously. Their investigation looks to be the first to go to trial, and will be a test case for the others.
But what about the rest? ACORN is closely tied to over 200 other organizations, such as CCI, which is the funnel that pours taxpayer dollars into the money laundering machine that is ACORN. In a report by Republican investigators to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, they state:
""Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators," the report said. Structurally, it is "a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act.""
ACORN is like the Hydra of Greek mythology. When you cut off one part of the organization, two more step up to take it's place. Cut off funding to one area, and it will draw money from another. Hercules finally defeated the Hydra by cauterizing the stumps after he cut off the heads. That is what we need to do, and our government has taken up the firebrand by voting, in both houses, to cut off funding. The states are starting to fight back, too, but there needs to be a comprehensive attack on all branches of ACORN and all of its affiliates with a combination of investigation and defunding.
ACORN is trying to get out in front of this scandal by implementing their own 'investigation', in hopes that it will keep anyone else from doing it. This must not be allowed to be the only investigation of ACORN. This is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.
There are over 200 heads on this hydra, so the job won't be easy or quick, but it must be done.
The beast is wounded; now is the time to finish it off.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
HELLO, SAN DIEGO! Updated
Wow. The new ACORN tape is really a bombshell.
This time they target the San Diego ACORN office. The man they dealt with was quite a winner. Not only did he talk to them about helping smuggle in the under aged girls over the border (he also recommended just setting up shop in Tijuana, because he 'has friends'), but at the end, he was inquiring where Hannah works and what her rates were. A little something to get her started, I'm sure.
Real one-on-one humanitarianism.
I will post the video as soon as they post it on biggovernment.com.
UPDATE: Here it is! I find myself saying 'wow' a lot, but...WOW! Attorney Juan Carlos gives new meaning to immigration assistance. The fact that he wanted to be a partner in their little enterprise was quite appalling. A new low, without doubt. I'm pretty sure that's a RICO offense. I do have a bit of a problem with all of the editing, though. That will be pointed out by ACORN supporters at every opportunity. I'd be interested to see the unedited versions, and I hope they release them soon. I still haven't found a reaction from ACORN on the latest video. I'll post it when I do.
This time they target the San Diego ACORN office. The man they dealt with was quite a winner. Not only did he talk to them about helping smuggle in the under aged girls over the border (he also recommended just setting up shop in Tijuana, because he 'has friends'), but at the end, he was inquiring where Hannah works and what her rates were. A little something to get her started, I'm sure.
Real one-on-one humanitarianism.
I will post the video as soon as they post it on biggovernment.com.
UPDATE: Here it is! I find myself saying 'wow' a lot, but...WOW! Attorney Juan Carlos gives new meaning to immigration assistance. The fact that he wanted to be a partner in their little enterprise was quite appalling. A new low, without doubt. I'm pretty sure that's a RICO offense. I do have a bit of a problem with all of the editing, though. That will be pointed out by ACORN supporters at every opportunity. I'd be interested to see the unedited versions, and I hope they release them soon. I still haven't found a reaction from ACORN on the latest video. I'll post it when I do.
THE SAGA CONTINUES
Here are parts 2 and 3 of the San Bernadino ACORN tapes. That Tresa, she sure is a talker, huh? And so obviously in fear for her life from the lunatic pimp and ho - oh, wait, the story has changed - she was just 'playing along'.
Well, it took 4 videos to do it, but the hornet's nest of media have finally been roused. Charlie Gibson embarrassed himself, ACORN has suspended advising new clients until they can perform an 'independent review'. 'Cause, sure, they're trustworthy enough to police themselves.....
The White House is distancing themselves (and managing to subtly bring Bush into it, too, of course), MN Governor Pawlenty is ordering an investigation into state ties to ACORN, and the Attorney General of NY is also investigating.
As for the press, they are finally realizing there is a major story here and that they are embarrassing themselves, a la Charlie Gibson. And if they haven't realized that on their own, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show is happy to point it out to them. CBS is actually paying attention (although they are spinning it as the downfall of a noble organization, and those horrible kids are hurting thousands of people with their thoughtless act of conservative revenge), as is the Wall Street Journal and, believe it or not, the New York Times (following the same meme as CBS - ACORN is the victim, vast right-wing agenda, blah, blah, blah)! The L.A. Times actually calls for an ACORN housecleaning - although they manage to paint poor Obama as a man who's wide-eyed bi-partisan hopes are being dashed by those evil, evil conservatives.
Tonight's disclosure is being touted as being a little bit different from the other videos that have been released. Mike Flynn, Editor-in-Chief of BigGovernment.com is also saying there are more cities to come. I wonder if Chicago is one of them....
I will be tuning in to Hannity tonight at 9pm and will continue to update this story as things break.
Now that the Obama administration is distancing themselves from the organization they paid $832,000 to 'get out the vote', what do you think the odds are that down the road they will turn on him?
Stay tuned, and pass the popcorn!
Well, it took 4 videos to do it, but the hornet's nest of media have finally been roused. Charlie Gibson embarrassed himself, ACORN has suspended advising new clients until they can perform an 'independent review'. 'Cause, sure, they're trustworthy enough to police themselves.....
The White House is distancing themselves (and managing to subtly bring Bush into it, too, of course), MN Governor Pawlenty is ordering an investigation into state ties to ACORN, and the Attorney General of NY is also investigating.
As for the press, they are finally realizing there is a major story here and that they are embarrassing themselves, a la Charlie Gibson. And if they haven't realized that on their own, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show is happy to point it out to them. CBS is actually paying attention (although they are spinning it as the downfall of a noble organization, and those horrible kids are hurting thousands of people with their thoughtless act of conservative revenge), as is the Wall Street Journal and, believe it or not, the New York Times (following the same meme as CBS - ACORN is the victim, vast right-wing agenda, blah, blah, blah)! The L.A. Times actually calls for an ACORN housecleaning - although they manage to paint poor Obama as a man who's wide-eyed bi-partisan hopes are being dashed by those evil, evil conservatives.
Tonight's disclosure is being touted as being a little bit different from the other videos that have been released. Mike Flynn, Editor-in-Chief of BigGovernment.com is also saying there are more cities to come. I wonder if Chicago is one of them....
I will be tuning in to Hannity tonight at 9pm and will continue to update this story as things break.
Now that the Obama administration is distancing themselves from the organization they paid $832,000 to 'get out the vote', what do you think the odds are that down the road they will turn on him?
Stay tuned, and pass the popcorn!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
STRIKING GOLD IN SUNNY CALIFORNIA Updated
James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have done it again, and oh, boy, did they strike gold! They travelled to San Bernadino, CA and paid a visit to the local ACORN office.
I don't want to give it away, but WOW!
One would assume they are saving the best for last, as it seems each tape is worse than the one before. I can't imagine what else they have in store for us! Can't wait to see Part 2....
Great job, Hannah and James!
UPDATE: And then there's this. This is just crazy!
UPDATE II: And this. Ooooh, and this one, too - how I wish I could be a fly on the wall when that letter is read! Sure do love Alinsky Rule #8!!
UPDATE III: Thankfully, the crazy woman working at the CA ACORN office didn't kill her husband. Kaelke and Miller are saying they were just 'playing along' and that she repeatedly told them she couldn't help them, but that it was edited out. Expect the entire unedited tape to be released this evening, after they present the next part tonight on Hannity. O'Keefe studied 'Rules for Radicals' and knows what tactics ACORN will try in order to discredit him, so I would assume he's prepared for this. Kaelke says ""They were clearly playing with me," she said "I decided to shock them as much as they were shocking me."" Miller says the ""whole thing was a preposterous production."" and 'said he couldn't believe the people wanted to propose such a "ludicrous enterprise," but continued talking to them and asking questions to see where it would lead'.
Exit question: If they knew there was something fishy going on, why didn't they call the cops? It would be rational to assume a national organization like ACORN would communicate amongst themselves about a pimp and a hooker talking about setting up an underaged brothel staffed with illegals in order to fund a congressional campaign and advise their staff to escort them out and/or call the cops. I would hardly think they would advise them to 'play along and take it up a notch while you're at it'. Seems a bit self-defeating, doesn't it?
I don't want to give it away, but WOW!
One would assume they are saving the best for last, as it seems each tape is worse than the one before. I can't imagine what else they have in store for us! Can't wait to see Part 2....
Great job, Hannah and James!
UPDATE: And then there's this. This is just crazy!
UPDATE II: And this. Ooooh, and this one, too - how I wish I could be a fly on the wall when that letter is read! Sure do love Alinsky Rule #8!!
UPDATE III: Thankfully, the crazy woman working at the CA ACORN office didn't kill her husband. Kaelke and Miller are saying they were just 'playing along' and that she repeatedly told them she couldn't help them, but that it was edited out. Expect the entire unedited tape to be released this evening, after they present the next part tonight on Hannity. O'Keefe studied 'Rules for Radicals' and knows what tactics ACORN will try in order to discredit him, so I would assume he's prepared for this. Kaelke says ""They were clearly playing with me," she said "I decided to shock them as much as they were shocking me."" Miller says the ""whole thing was a preposterous production."" and 'said he couldn't believe the people wanted to propose such a "ludicrous enterprise," but continued talking to them and asking questions to see where it would lead'.
Exit question: If they knew there was something fishy going on, why didn't they call the cops? It would be rational to assume a national organization like ACORN would communicate amongst themselves about a pimp and a hooker talking about setting up an underaged brothel staffed with illegals in order to fund a congressional campaign and advise their staff to escort them out and/or call the cops. I would hardly think they would advise them to 'play along and take it up a notch while you're at it'. Seems a bit self-defeating, doesn't it?
Monday, September 14, 2009
A CASE GROWS IN BROOKLYN
I was just going to add updates to my original ACORN story, but there is so much happening that I thought I should make a new post. In my earlier post, I talked about the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD ACORN offices that were the subject of two investigative journalists with hidden cameras.
Let's just say that corruption is rife at ACORN, and it's all funded by our tax dollars.
What was ACORN's response? Firing the on-camera workers and issuing a press release about each case being an isolated staffing problem. Isn't that what they keep saying about the fraudulent voter registrations? In 14 states, no less. According to them, those two incidents in D.C. and MD were aberrations, and did not, repeat NOT, mean it was a problem throughout the organization. Uh-huh.
Until today,that is, when Giles and O'Keefe released a tape of the Brooklyn, NY office. This one is unique because, not only are they advising her to lie about what she does and how to hide the fact that the under aged girls are being prostituted, but they are also counselling on how to launder the money so that the pimp/future congressman can fund his campaign.
Lovely.
From what I've been able to investigate, both money laundering and assisting illegals in entering the country are both violations of racketeering/RICO laws. One can only hope complicity in child prostitution will carry a felony charge as well, but these days, who knows!
So far, no DOJ investigation (I'm not holding my breath on Eric Holder stepping up voluntarily), but at least there's talk of cutting off the cash flow. That's a start. Taking away their Census gig was a major step, too.
Uh-Oh!! The Senate just voted to defund ACORN Housing 83-7!
More bad news! I just got word that ACORN is now being investigated by the Brooklyn District Attorney.
Oh my goodness! What a day! It sounds like more bad news for ACORN!
Andrew Breitbart, the creator of BigGovernment.com has just said that tomorrow's revelation about ACORN will be "devastating".
I can hardly wait!
Let's just say that corruption is rife at ACORN, and it's all funded by our tax dollars.
What was ACORN's response? Firing the on-camera workers and issuing a press release about each case being an isolated staffing problem. Isn't that what they keep saying about the fraudulent voter registrations? In 14 states, no less. According to them, those two incidents in D.C. and MD were aberrations, and did not, repeat NOT, mean it was a problem throughout the organization. Uh-huh.
Until today,that is, when Giles and O'Keefe released a tape of the Brooklyn, NY office. This one is unique because, not only are they advising her to lie about what she does and how to hide the fact that the under aged girls are being prostituted, but they are also counselling on how to launder the money so that the pimp/future congressman can fund his campaign.
Lovely.
From what I've been able to investigate, both money laundering and assisting illegals in entering the country are both violations of racketeering/RICO laws. One can only hope complicity in child prostitution will carry a felony charge as well, but these days, who knows!
So far, no DOJ investigation (I'm not holding my breath on Eric Holder stepping up voluntarily), but at least there's talk of cutting off the cash flow. That's a start. Taking away their Census gig was a major step, too.
Uh-Oh!! The Senate just voted to defund ACORN Housing 83-7!
More bad news! I just got word that ACORN is now being investigated by the Brooklyn District Attorney.
Oh my goodness! What a day! It sounds like more bad news for ACORN!
Andrew Breitbart, the creator of BigGovernment.com has just said that tomorrow's revelation about ACORN will be "devastating".
I can hardly wait!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
FLY EAGLES FLY
Today was opening day for my Philadelphia Eagles, and they didn't disappoint. They played the Panthers in N. Carolina and, although it didn't start out too well for them, five sacks and seven turnovers later, the Eagles beat the tar out of the Panthers, 38-10.
Unfortunately, QB Donovan McNabb has a fractured rib, and Coach Reid isn't saying if he will be up for play next Sunday against New Orleans. If he's out next week, Kolb will take over QB duties, as Michael Vick isn't elegible to play until Week 3.
Defensive coach Sean McDermott lead an agressive defense, keeping pressure on QB Jake Delhomme, who, after suffering five sacks, was pulled in the third quarter. I'd say Mr. McDermott has proven himself worthy of his new position and put his critics to rest today.
Great job, guys!
FLY EAGLES FLY!
Fly Eagles Fly, On The Road To Victory.
Fight Eagles Fight, Score A Touchdown 1-2-3.
Hit 'Em Low. Hit 'Em High.
And We'll Watch Our Eagles Fly.
Fly Eagles Fly,
On The Road To Victory.
E-A-G-L-E-S, EAGLES!!!
Unfortunately, QB Donovan McNabb has a fractured rib, and Coach Reid isn't saying if he will be up for play next Sunday against New Orleans. If he's out next week, Kolb will take over QB duties, as Michael Vick isn't elegible to play until Week 3.
Defensive coach Sean McDermott lead an agressive defense, keeping pressure on QB Jake Delhomme, who, after suffering five sacks, was pulled in the third quarter. I'd say Mr. McDermott has proven himself worthy of his new position and put his critics to rest today.
Great job, guys!
FLY EAGLES FLY!
Fly Eagles Fly, On The Road To Victory.
Fight Eagles Fight, Score A Touchdown 1-2-3.
Hit 'Em Low. Hit 'Em High.
And We'll Watch Our Eagles Fly.
Fly Eagles Fly,
On The Road To Victory.
E-A-G-L-E-S, EAGLES!!!
BIG TROUBLE FOR JOE
Nancy Pelosi has called for Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) to publicly apologize on the floor of the House, or face the consequences. Mr. Wilson has declined, feeling that the written general apology and the phoned in apology (which both President Obama and V.P. Biden accepted) were enough.
The nerve of him, imagining the acceptance of an apology meaning the end of an incident.
Leading Democrats, finally finding a poster-boy for all of their accusations of 'incivility', are milking it for all it's worth. After all, if people are talking about this, they aren't talking about the ACORN scandal (any takers on when it will start being called 'ACORNGate'?), sinking polls, rising debt, and, of course, the fact that Obama, was, in fact, lying.
Don't get me wrong. I think what Mr. Wilson did was unacceptable. He was not at a town hall, and there is a certain level of decorum that must be observed when in the presence of Congress and the President, like it or not. But I also can sympathize with his frustration. After all, he knew there was an amendment introduced by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) that would specifically provide for barring illegals from coverage - an amendment that was defeated by Democrats, so he knew first hand that what Obama was saying wasn't true. As the language stood on Sept. 10th, illegals technically weren't eligible, but there was also no provision whatsoever to obligate them to prove legal status, making a huge loophole every illegal in the country can use. A sudden 'review' by the Senate on the 11th ultimately proved Wilson right when they closed the loophole. But shouting 'You lie!" at a Presidential speech wasn't the proper way to address the situation. I agree with the sentiment, but not the delivery.
The democratic leadership's manufactured outrage must be at a fever pitch in the face of his refusal to bow and scrape.
They have threatened to punish him if he declines to apologize, yet again (and not even to the person the original comment was intended for). Knowing this is merely an exercise in political hay-making, he is standing by the fact that his apology has been accepted.
I credit him for his bravery, considering the punishment they have in mind.
They will slap him with a 'Resolution to Admonish'.
I wonder if they will take it to the next level and actually wag their fingers and 'tsk tsk tsk' him.
The horror.
So let me get this straight. Charlie Rangel has understated his net worth by half, evaded numerous taxes, as well as allegedly bribed members of the ethics committee that are investigating him (to the tune of $20,000 each), all the while still remaining Chair of the Ways and Means committee.
Rep. Wilson hurls an offensive (albeit true) accusation, after being told the administration was going to 'call out' lies about the health reforms not five minutes before telling a whopper themselves, and he is going to be shamed publicly for it.
No, no partisan double-standard there, Madame Speaker.
The nerve of him, imagining the acceptance of an apology meaning the end of an incident.
Leading Democrats, finally finding a poster-boy for all of their accusations of 'incivility', are milking it for all it's worth. After all, if people are talking about this, they aren't talking about the ACORN scandal (any takers on when it will start being called 'ACORNGate'?), sinking polls, rising debt, and, of course, the fact that Obama, was, in fact, lying.
Don't get me wrong. I think what Mr. Wilson did was unacceptable. He was not at a town hall, and there is a certain level of decorum that must be observed when in the presence of Congress and the President, like it or not. But I also can sympathize with his frustration. After all, he knew there was an amendment introduced by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) that would specifically provide for barring illegals from coverage - an amendment that was defeated by Democrats, so he knew first hand that what Obama was saying wasn't true. As the language stood on Sept. 10th, illegals technically weren't eligible, but there was also no provision whatsoever to obligate them to prove legal status, making a huge loophole every illegal in the country can use. A sudden 'review' by the Senate on the 11th ultimately proved Wilson right when they closed the loophole. But shouting 'You lie!" at a Presidential speech wasn't the proper way to address the situation. I agree with the sentiment, but not the delivery.
The democratic leadership's manufactured outrage must be at a fever pitch in the face of his refusal to bow and scrape.
They have threatened to punish him if he declines to apologize, yet again (and not even to the person the original comment was intended for). Knowing this is merely an exercise in political hay-making, he is standing by the fact that his apology has been accepted.
I credit him for his bravery, considering the punishment they have in mind.
They will slap him with a 'Resolution to Admonish'.
I wonder if they will take it to the next level and actually wag their fingers and 'tsk tsk tsk' him.
The horror.
So let me get this straight. Charlie Rangel has understated his net worth by half, evaded numerous taxes, as well as allegedly bribed members of the ethics committee that are investigating him (to the tune of $20,000 each), all the while still remaining Chair of the Ways and Means committee.
Rep. Wilson hurls an offensive (albeit true) accusation, after being told the administration was going to 'call out' lies about the health reforms not five minutes before telling a whopper themselves, and he is going to be shamed publicly for it.
No, no partisan double-standard there, Madame Speaker.
Friday, September 11, 2009
AN UNEXPECTED SIDE OF ACORN Updated
It seems ACORN has branched out more than first thought. It turns out they also do tax 'consultation'; dispensing advice, it seems, on how to defraud the government via tax evasion. My first thought on this - um, aren't they funded by tax dollars? Seems a little self-defeating, but whatever.
The real story isn't the evasion advice, illegal though it may be; it's the bland acceptance, not to mention complicity, of the outrageous story they were told that is the real outrage. The first tapes to be released were from the Baltimore, MD ACORN office.
These two investigative journalists (a term you don't hear too often these days) posed as a hooker and her pimp, trying to buy a house in order to bring over underaged girls from El Salvador to force them into prostitution. They needed a tax return in order to apply for a home loan, and were given advice on what code to use when filing. Voila! Our intrepid prostitute became a 'performing artist'.
She was also given a nice little pep talk about not getting down on herself about being a hooker. She should be proud of herself; after all, it's not like she's breaking the law or anything!
But that's not the kicker. Not by a long shot. The whole point of this investigation was to see how far they could push it. So push it they did. The cherry on this treat? They told the ACORN reps that they were going to use the money from the underaged sex slaves to fund the pimp boyfriend's political asperations! Seems a little far-fetched, doesn't it? Apparently not to those worldly nuts at ACORN.
The reation to this expose in the MSM has been predictable - they refuse to show the hidden camera footage, but that hasn't stopped them from bombarding James O'Keefe, the 'pimp' in our tale with requests for an interview. This after questioning his ethics! I wonder what Bob Woodward thinks of this line of attack.
ACORN, of course, protests their innocence, going so far as to fire the two women in the video. Rogue employees, you know. They seem to have an epidemic of them. They insisted that it was a one-off, isolated to that particular office. And, of course, they pulled out their favorite, tired old worn out fall-back position.
Interestingly enough, the next day, a second video surfaces (okay, O'Keefe, knowing this was coming - he's read Rules for Radicals - posted it on biggovernment.com), but this time it is a completely different office, this time in Washington D.C.. The advice in this second tape was even more detailed, not just on how to evade taxes and buy a house to use as a brothel for underaged illegals, but also on ensuring our favorite Pimp Daddy's congressional dreams.
These ACORN workers, too, were fired. The MSM was still trying to make excuses, but then, this afternoon, the other shoe dropped. And dropped. And dropped. Must be a centipede in the middle of that rotten acorn. Lots of shoes.
Things have been ratcheted up a notch, now, though. It seems they are calling in their political muscle. This is insane. How many hidden camera t.v. news exposes have we seen over the years? I don't recall any reporters going to jail for those reports. Apparently its not illegal when you are going after the big bad bill collector, but when it comes to recording conversations about advice from taxpayer funded organizations on the best way to cheat the IRS, illegally obtain a house, illegally import underaged girls to be used in the sex trade in said house AND claim them as dependents, not to mention fund a congressional campaign with the proceeds of the venture, well, obviously the illegal recording is far more important an issue of investigation.
I think there is a lot more to come with this. Pass the pop-corn and stay tuned!
UPDATE: HotAirPundit has uncovered the City State Attorney who is considering charges against O'Keefe and Giles. The shocker isn't who she supported in last year's election, it's the other cause she has supported for the past 14 years! Make sure you read all the way down - turns out there was an award-winning hidden camera t.v. investigation in 2000. Not a peep about the illegalities of using hidden cameras on that one!
The real story isn't the evasion advice, illegal though it may be; it's the bland acceptance, not to mention complicity, of the outrageous story they were told that is the real outrage. The first tapes to be released were from the Baltimore, MD ACORN office.
These two investigative journalists (a term you don't hear too often these days) posed as a hooker and her pimp, trying to buy a house in order to bring over underaged girls from El Salvador to force them into prostitution. They needed a tax return in order to apply for a home loan, and were given advice on what code to use when filing. Voila! Our intrepid prostitute became a 'performing artist'.
She was also given a nice little pep talk about not getting down on herself about being a hooker. She should be proud of herself; after all, it's not like she's breaking the law or anything!
But that's not the kicker. Not by a long shot. The whole point of this investigation was to see how far they could push it. So push it they did. The cherry on this treat? They told the ACORN reps that they were going to use the money from the underaged sex slaves to fund the pimp boyfriend's political asperations! Seems a little far-fetched, doesn't it? Apparently not to those worldly nuts at ACORN.
The reation to this expose in the MSM has been predictable - they refuse to show the hidden camera footage, but that hasn't stopped them from bombarding James O'Keefe, the 'pimp' in our tale with requests for an interview. This after questioning his ethics! I wonder what Bob Woodward thinks of this line of attack.
ACORN, of course, protests their innocence, going so far as to fire the two women in the video. Rogue employees, you know. They seem to have an epidemic of them. They insisted that it was a one-off, isolated to that particular office. And, of course, they pulled out their favorite, tired old worn out fall-back position.
Interestingly enough, the next day, a second video surfaces (okay, O'Keefe, knowing this was coming - he's read Rules for Radicals - posted it on biggovernment.com), but this time it is a completely different office, this time in Washington D.C.. The advice in this second tape was even more detailed, not just on how to evade taxes and buy a house to use as a brothel for underaged illegals, but also on ensuring our favorite Pimp Daddy's congressional dreams.
These ACORN workers, too, were fired. The MSM was still trying to make excuses, but then, this afternoon, the other shoe dropped. And dropped. And dropped. Must be a centipede in the middle of that rotten acorn. Lots of shoes.
Things have been ratcheted up a notch, now, though. It seems they are calling in their political muscle. This is insane. How many hidden camera t.v. news exposes have we seen over the years? I don't recall any reporters going to jail for those reports. Apparently its not illegal when you are going after the big bad bill collector, but when it comes to recording conversations about advice from taxpayer funded organizations on the best way to cheat the IRS, illegally obtain a house, illegally import underaged girls to be used in the sex trade in said house AND claim them as dependents, not to mention fund a congressional campaign with the proceeds of the venture, well, obviously the illegal recording is far more important an issue of investigation.
I think there is a lot more to come with this. Pass the pop-corn and stay tuned!
UPDATE: HotAirPundit has uncovered the City State Attorney who is considering charges against O'Keefe and Giles. The shocker isn't who she supported in last year's election, it's the other cause she has supported for the past 14 years! Make sure you read all the way down - turns out there was an award-winning hidden camera t.v. investigation in 2000. Not a peep about the illegalities of using hidden cameras on that one!
NEVER FORGET
It's hard to believe it has been 8 years since the 9-11 terror attacks. As I sit here and watch the news coverage, listening to the names and the bells, the horror of it all washes over me anew. To this day, I cannot see the people jumping to their deaths from the flaming towers without crying. The fear and desperation those poor people experienced in their last moments hits me to the core. As distressing as those images are, though, I'm glad they are being shown. Anyone who can look at those images and then turn around and call waterboarding torture are obviously not grasping the realities of the situation.
We have all seen the images of the towers on fire over and over, as well as the thick black smoke pouring out of a gaping hole in the Pentagon and the smoking remains in that empty field near Shanksville, PA. Those images are burned into our brains, but they don't give us, 8 years later, the full impact of what we truly lost. Yes, those towers were iconic symbols of a mighty country, but they were, after all, just buildings.
But then, once a year, we see the images that we just can't reconcile. Innocent victims, either by choice or by accident, tumbling out of windows to their deaths thousands of feet below. Did they choose the fall to burning to death? Or was it accidental; people desperate to find a way out through the thick black smoke, stumbling through one of the many shattered windows to their death? Either way, it is an image that haunts us all. Those images are not played nearly as often as the images of the planes hitting the towers, and I'm thankful for a reason you might not expect.
Constant, repetitive replaying would inure us to the horror, as the replaying of the planes hitting the towers has dulled the impact of the act over the intervening years. The images of people leaping to their deaths is something usually seen only on the anniversary, and that restricted viewing keeps those images potent and fresh in our minds. We tend to forget that particular horror, to block it from our minds, so that when we are confronted by it again, it hurts us anew.
And we need to be hurt, we need to feel the pain of that day. We need to keep it fresh, keep it raw, keep that white-hot ember of pain deep inside of us burning.
When our children are old enough (as I feel, this year, that one of mine is), they should be shown those images. Not by schools, mind you, but by their parents. Some teachable moments require the love and understanding of a parent, not the institutionalized, sanitized, impersonal recitation they would get from school. Schools need to teach about 9-11, of course. That goes without saying. Historic events like that should always be a part of the curriculum. But we parents need to open our children's eyes to the horrors the terrorists inflicted upon us in all their devastating realities so that they can then carry the torch.
That torch, lit by the burning ember of our collective grief, must be carried forth by successive generations.
Superimposing the oh so personal face of fellow Americans falling to their deaths on the more general images of destruction ensures that ensuing generations will not be able to shrug off the events of that day indifferently as just buildings that fell down.
Those who lost their lives that day deserve nothing less.
God Bless those who lost their lives that dark day, those who lost loved ones, those in uniform who risk their lives every day to keep us safe, and God Bless America.
We have all seen the images of the towers on fire over and over, as well as the thick black smoke pouring out of a gaping hole in the Pentagon and the smoking remains in that empty field near Shanksville, PA. Those images are burned into our brains, but they don't give us, 8 years later, the full impact of what we truly lost. Yes, those towers were iconic symbols of a mighty country, but they were, after all, just buildings.
But then, once a year, we see the images that we just can't reconcile. Innocent victims, either by choice or by accident, tumbling out of windows to their deaths thousands of feet below. Did they choose the fall to burning to death? Or was it accidental; people desperate to find a way out through the thick black smoke, stumbling through one of the many shattered windows to their death? Either way, it is an image that haunts us all. Those images are not played nearly as often as the images of the planes hitting the towers, and I'm thankful for a reason you might not expect.
Constant, repetitive replaying would inure us to the horror, as the replaying of the planes hitting the towers has dulled the impact of the act over the intervening years. The images of people leaping to their deaths is something usually seen only on the anniversary, and that restricted viewing keeps those images potent and fresh in our minds. We tend to forget that particular horror, to block it from our minds, so that when we are confronted by it again, it hurts us anew.
And we need to be hurt, we need to feel the pain of that day. We need to keep it fresh, keep it raw, keep that white-hot ember of pain deep inside of us burning.
When our children are old enough (as I feel, this year, that one of mine is), they should be shown those images. Not by schools, mind you, but by their parents. Some teachable moments require the love and understanding of a parent, not the institutionalized, sanitized, impersonal recitation they would get from school. Schools need to teach about 9-11, of course. That goes without saying. Historic events like that should always be a part of the curriculum. But we parents need to open our children's eyes to the horrors the terrorists inflicted upon us in all their devastating realities so that they can then carry the torch.
That torch, lit by the burning ember of our collective grief, must be carried forth by successive generations.
Superimposing the oh so personal face of fellow Americans falling to their deaths on the more general images of destruction ensures that ensuing generations will not be able to shrug off the events of that day indifferently as just buildings that fell down.
Those who lost their lives that day deserve nothing less.
God Bless those who lost their lives that dark day, those who lost loved ones, those in uniform who risk their lives every day to keep us safe, and God Bless America.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
PERSPECTIVE
I have been thinking about last night's Joint Sessions speech, wondering what to write about it. The heckler was getting tons of airtime - radio and t.v., Fox and all of the MSM, of course - they were all over that one. No mention of whether the comment was true or not. It was all about manners, wasn't it? They really can't even win that one. Now, I do understand that one was far more egregious, but at least it was true, whereas the booing of Bush over Social Security's impending collapse wasn't exactly founded on truth, so perhaps the playing field was leveled a bit.
My favorite part of the whole thing? It's a tie between Nancy Pelosi's look of outraged horror (maybe she thought she heard 'Nazi') and Obama's reaction - prissy arm-crossing and prim, puckered lips and a terse little 'it's not true' as he twitches his arm in irritation. Very Pee Wee Herman. Biden, like the big, lovable galoot that he is simply hung his head in shame (after taking a few seconds to process what had happened).
And, of course, lost in the whirl over 'LiarGate' (isn't there always a 'Gate' after it these days?) was the comic relief section of the speech. Is it just me, or did it seem like even he couldn't say it without laughing?
All in all, quite a bit more entertaining this time around, which is great, since we've seen this speech a billion times already....
Then I came across this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Daniel Henninger. He is absolutely right. We are wasting time debating health care/insurance reform - something that isn't nearly as pressing a crisis as the economy.
Was the whole plan on the economy, start to finish, merely pushing through Porkulus as quickly as possible and then wait for the unicorns and rainbows to usher in a new era of prosperity?
I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do I think that this will cause Obama's presidency to be the 'greatest failed presidency' in American history? Well, you can only blame Bush so far - the real damage isn't set to hit until late next year or early 2011 - far too late in the game. Let's face it - the teetering economy has been rocked briskly to the edge with the profligate spending spree the democrats have been on since January, which must have caused as much damage as, if not more than, the initial crisis.
This genuine crisis was summarily dismissed in order to move on to the democrat's Holy Grail, health care. They tried to capitalize on the spring swine flu - nothing like a crisis to get work done, eh Rahm? But the crisis was a non-starter and Americans started turning to the bill. After the stimulus and omnibus bills went through unscrutinized, Americans were darn sure going to read something that was going to affect them so much more personally than just in their wallets.
In the meantime, the economy continues to suffer. We've taken our eye off the ball.
I don't care if this may be the destruction of the Obama administration.
I care that this may be the destruction of America.
Monetizing debt, outrageous spending, printing money, unemployment with no relief in sight, no matter what they may say about the stimulus, combined with decreasing tax revenues - all of this is charging us forward towards the brink.
It's time to get back to the real crisis, please.
My favorite part of the whole thing? It's a tie between Nancy Pelosi's look of outraged horror (maybe she thought she heard 'Nazi') and Obama's reaction - prissy arm-crossing and prim, puckered lips and a terse little 'it's not true' as he twitches his arm in irritation. Very Pee Wee Herman. Biden, like the big, lovable galoot that he is simply hung his head in shame (after taking a few seconds to process what had happened).
And, of course, lost in the whirl over 'LiarGate' (isn't there always a 'Gate' after it these days?) was the comic relief section of the speech. Is it just me, or did it seem like even he couldn't say it without laughing?
All in all, quite a bit more entertaining this time around, which is great, since we've seen this speech a billion times already....
Then I came across this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Daniel Henninger. He is absolutely right. We are wasting time debating health care/insurance reform - something that isn't nearly as pressing a crisis as the economy.
Was the whole plan on the economy, start to finish, merely pushing through Porkulus as quickly as possible and then wait for the unicorns and rainbows to usher in a new era of prosperity?
I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do I think that this will cause Obama's presidency to be the 'greatest failed presidency' in American history? Well, you can only blame Bush so far - the real damage isn't set to hit until late next year or early 2011 - far too late in the game. Let's face it - the teetering economy has been rocked briskly to the edge with the profligate spending spree the democrats have been on since January, which must have caused as much damage as, if not more than, the initial crisis.
This genuine crisis was summarily dismissed in order to move on to the democrat's Holy Grail, health care. They tried to capitalize on the spring swine flu - nothing like a crisis to get work done, eh Rahm? But the crisis was a non-starter and Americans started turning to the bill. After the stimulus and omnibus bills went through unscrutinized, Americans were darn sure going to read something that was going to affect them so much more personally than just in their wallets.
In the meantime, the economy continues to suffer. We've taken our eye off the ball.
I don't care if this may be the destruction of the Obama administration.
I care that this may be the destruction of America.
Monetizing debt, outrageous spending, printing money, unemployment with no relief in sight, no matter what they may say about the stimulus, combined with decreasing tax revenues - all of this is charging us forward towards the brink.
It's time to get back to the real crisis, please.
Monday, September 7, 2009
HOW INDEED, MR. RANGEL?
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) recently made a comment that I actually agree with, but not exactly the way he meant it.
"Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, 'How did this happen?' " Rangel said, according to the New York Post.
Yes, Rep. Rangel, you are absolutely right. I DO go to sleep wondering 'How did this happen?'.
How did a radical, far-left SOCIALIST with seriously questionable associates become President of the United States? How did said socialist then manage to install a secondary government, unaccountable to our constitutional checks and balances, fund it and then man it with a rogues gallery of radicals, socialists and even a communist or two?
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!
"Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, 'How did this happen?' " Rangel said, according to the New York Post.
Yes, Rep. Rangel, you are absolutely right. I DO go to sleep wondering 'How did this happen?'.
How did a radical, far-left SOCIALIST with seriously questionable associates become President of the United States? How did said socialist then manage to install a secondary government, unaccountable to our constitutional checks and balances, fund it and then man it with a rogues gallery of radicals, socialists and even a communist or two?
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!
THE "VICIOUS SMEAR CAMPAIGN"
I've been watching the MSM spin on the Van Jones situation, and I have to say, it's just appalling. I knew, when I first read his resignation statement, that the MSM would take his 'vicious smear campaign' line and run with it. They are desperately trying to turn him into a martyr to the Obama Agenda. Using the 'vicious smear campaign' angle is simply laughable. And if you want to discuss 'vicious smear campaigns', I personally would point to the devastating attacks on Sarah Palin and her entire family that were not only cruel, but underhanded and untrue. Van Jones was brought down by his own words, both written and spoken.
Let's take a look at those unfounded smears, shall we?
Let's start with the accusation that sparked the whole firestorm - Jones is a self-avowed Communist. This was the original talking point from Glenn Beck about Jones - how did we end up with a communist advising the president? The MSM is refuting this claim of communism, saying he never claimed he was a communist. Not only did he proudly proclaim he was a communist, but he has never walked back from that claim, or insinuated that he is no longer one. Considering how open and public he was about his radical views, one would assume that if he had a change of heart, he would have been just as public about it, especially if it was politically expedient to do so.
Now to one of the more minor charges against him - he called Republicans a-holes. Now, that is crude, rude and impolitic, but it is a relatively minor transgression. After all, just about every politician has called the opposition a crude name at least once, especially when they feel comfortable with the crowd they are speaking to, as he most certainly was, judging by the cheers that greeted his pronouncement. The only thing that surprises me is that he must have known he was being videotaped, and so should have used a bit more discretion, but, when one is in an echo chamber, one often forgets there is a larger world beyond it. Especially since this was only 5 months ago and he was already eyeing a post in the administration - the supposedly most bi-partisan administration evah!! That the MSM is jumping all over this as a main reason he had to step down is because it makes it all seem so petty and ridiculous - this fine man had to step down because of this? How thin skinned can conservatives be? Get a grip, neo-cons!
Let's leave that minor pettiness behind and get to the real meat of the argument (excuse me, 'vicious smear campaign') against Jones. Let's look at his ideas about 9/11. First, there is his signing of the 9/11 Truth Document. The spin on this one is that he says the petition "didn't reflect his views" - and besides, he didn't "carefully review" the petition. Let's take a moment to remember that the man is a lawyer as we digest these claims of his. Every lawyer worth his salt knows you never sign anything without careful review. A quick glance at the 9/11 Truth Document website makes it pretty clear what it is all about. His response to this scandal is so lame that it doesn't even deserve the title 'spin'.
Another little-known action of his regarding 9/11 is even more appalling. On Sept. 12, 2001, he "led a vigil that expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans as well as what he called the victims of "U.S. imperialism" around the world." This alone should have kept him from holding public office, be it elected or appointed. This is a man who has a seriously flawed view of this country and should never be allowed to dictate policy of any kind.
Here's another little-known fact: Jones, until recently, sat on the board of the 'Apollo Alliance' - a cabal made up of labor, business, environmental and community leaders who, ultimately, were put in charge of writing the Porkulus bill AND Cap and Trade. BTW, the founders of the Apollo Alliance are Van Jones, Wade Rathke (co-founder of ACORN), and Jeff Jones, William Ayers' co-founder of the Weather Underground. Lovely. A veritable trifecta of radicals.
Here are some more of Jones' greatest hits:
In 2006, Jones signed another petition - this one calling for nationwide 'resistance' to police.
Equating George W. Bush with a crack head.
Accusing white polluters of purposefully directing pollution to minority neighborhoods.
Accusing white farmers of intentionally 'poisoning' minority workers.
But his most alarming statements and campaigns have to do with his radical communist agenda:
He was a main speaker at an anti-government rally in 2002, sponsored by the Revolutionary Communist Party, that urged 'resistance' against the US government, with the ultimate goal being the overthrow of our current government, followed by the the installation of a communist dictatorship.
How will this be accomplished, you ask? Easy. It's all about 'Minimum Goals and Maximum Goals'. According to Mr. Jones, revolution moves in baby steps.
He is also quite anti-capitalist. He feels that the system that has made this country, over the past 233 years, the most successful, wealthiest (our poverty level is middle class for much of the rest of the world), influential, generous, free nation in the history of the world is fatally flawed, and his preferred method of government - communist dictatorship, which has been proven over and over again to not work, impoverishes it's citizens (think Soviet bread lines), restricts their freedoms and destroys their standing in the world.
I think the point of people like Mr. Jones is that instead of bringing up third world countries through free market trade so that they can compete with America, they would prefer to bring America down to the third world level instead. I, personally, am damn proud to live in the greatest country on earth, and I think that, considering the amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who flock to our shores, I'm not alone.
Bring them up to our level, Mr. Jones, don't cast us down to theirs.
There are so many questionable things about this man, so much that has made the news. But, especially in light of what the left put Sarah Palin through, are these things 'vicious smears'?
I think not.
Yet again the mainstream media has given up it's journalistic integrity and ethics in favor of water carrying for the democrat party.
Let's take a look at those unfounded smears, shall we?
Let's start with the accusation that sparked the whole firestorm - Jones is a self-avowed Communist. This was the original talking point from Glenn Beck about Jones - how did we end up with a communist advising the president? The MSM is refuting this claim of communism, saying he never claimed he was a communist. Not only did he proudly proclaim he was a communist, but he has never walked back from that claim, or insinuated that he is no longer one. Considering how open and public he was about his radical views, one would assume that if he had a change of heart, he would have been just as public about it, especially if it was politically expedient to do so.
Now to one of the more minor charges against him - he called Republicans a-holes. Now, that is crude, rude and impolitic, but it is a relatively minor transgression. After all, just about every politician has called the opposition a crude name at least once, especially when they feel comfortable with the crowd they are speaking to, as he most certainly was, judging by the cheers that greeted his pronouncement. The only thing that surprises me is that he must have known he was being videotaped, and so should have used a bit more discretion, but, when one is in an echo chamber, one often forgets there is a larger world beyond it. Especially since this was only 5 months ago and he was already eyeing a post in the administration - the supposedly most bi-partisan administration evah!! That the MSM is jumping all over this as a main reason he had to step down is because it makes it all seem so petty and ridiculous - this fine man had to step down because of this? How thin skinned can conservatives be? Get a grip, neo-cons!
Let's leave that minor pettiness behind and get to the real meat of the argument (excuse me, 'vicious smear campaign') against Jones. Let's look at his ideas about 9/11. First, there is his signing of the 9/11 Truth Document. The spin on this one is that he says the petition "didn't reflect his views" - and besides, he didn't "carefully review" the petition. Let's take a moment to remember that the man is a lawyer as we digest these claims of his. Every lawyer worth his salt knows you never sign anything without careful review. A quick glance at the 9/11 Truth Document website makes it pretty clear what it is all about. His response to this scandal is so lame that it doesn't even deserve the title 'spin'.
Another little-known action of his regarding 9/11 is even more appalling. On Sept. 12, 2001, he "led a vigil that expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans as well as what he called the victims of "U.S. imperialism" around the world." This alone should have kept him from holding public office, be it elected or appointed. This is a man who has a seriously flawed view of this country and should never be allowed to dictate policy of any kind.
Here's another little-known fact: Jones, until recently, sat on the board of the 'Apollo Alliance' - a cabal made up of labor, business, environmental and community leaders who, ultimately, were put in charge of writing the Porkulus bill AND Cap and Trade. BTW, the founders of the Apollo Alliance are Van Jones, Wade Rathke (co-founder of ACORN), and Jeff Jones, William Ayers' co-founder of the Weather Underground. Lovely. A veritable trifecta of radicals.
Here are some more of Jones' greatest hits:
In 2006, Jones signed another petition - this one calling for nationwide 'resistance' to police.
Equating George W. Bush with a crack head.
Accusing white polluters of purposefully directing pollution to minority neighborhoods.
Accusing white farmers of intentionally 'poisoning' minority workers.
But his most alarming statements and campaigns have to do with his radical communist agenda:
He was a main speaker at an anti-government rally in 2002, sponsored by the Revolutionary Communist Party, that urged 'resistance' against the US government, with the ultimate goal being the overthrow of our current government, followed by the the installation of a communist dictatorship.
How will this be accomplished, you ask? Easy. It's all about 'Minimum Goals and Maximum Goals'. According to Mr. Jones, revolution moves in baby steps.
He is also quite anti-capitalist. He feels that the system that has made this country, over the past 233 years, the most successful, wealthiest (our poverty level is middle class for much of the rest of the world), influential, generous, free nation in the history of the world is fatally flawed, and his preferred method of government - communist dictatorship, which has been proven over and over again to not work, impoverishes it's citizens (think Soviet bread lines), restricts their freedoms and destroys their standing in the world.
I think the point of people like Mr. Jones is that instead of bringing up third world countries through free market trade so that they can compete with America, they would prefer to bring America down to the third world level instead. I, personally, am damn proud to live in the greatest country on earth, and I think that, considering the amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who flock to our shores, I'm not alone.
Bring them up to our level, Mr. Jones, don't cast us down to theirs.
There are so many questionable things about this man, so much that has made the news. But, especially in light of what the left put Sarah Palin through, are these things 'vicious smears'?
I think not.
Yet again the mainstream media has given up it's journalistic integrity and ethics in favor of water carrying for the democrat party.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
THE SCHOOL CHILDREN SPEECH
On Tuesday President Obama will be speaking to the school children of the country. There are many outraged parents, and a lot of talk about whether to allow their children to attend school that day. It has reached the point where my local high school called to notify parents that they could excuse their children (have them do other activities), provided they write a note. I myself have been asked over the past week if I would send my kids to school.
Yes, I am.
I think, first and foremost, that my children are informed enough to listen and question on their own (I've had to urge restraint on my youngest, however!). I also feel that the speech itself will be pretty vanilla - mostly about staying in school and getting good grades, setting goals and achieving them, and going to college. All things I try to teach my own children.
There may, however, be stuff about 'service' to the community, which I will talk to my children about. Service to your community is a commendable thing, but it should be a personal choice, not something mandated by the state.
The thing that truly gives me pause is the worksheets that have been proposed. I'm not thrilled with the section titled 'Before the Speech'. The students are asked a series of questions, the last of which asks, "Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of Congress or governors? Why is what they say important?"
I would have less issue with these questions if they were followed with 'Why is it important for our elected officials to listen to the people? Why is what they say important, too?' This is, after all, a representative democracy form of government, and our elected officials should, ideally, do the bidding of the majority. Since I can count on the school system to drop the ball on pointing this out, I will, of course, supplement my children's education so that they understand how their government works (or, at least, how it's supposed to).
To me, the grade 7-12 worksheets were a bit more troubling, mostly because if you look at the style of the questions, some of them almost seem like polling questions. "What are the three most important words of the speech? Rank them" After all, grades 10th -12th will be of voting age in 2012, so why not focus group them now, hmmm?
What really has people freaked out, in my opinion, is the fact that he is addressing all of the school children in the nation. Considering some of the liberal ideas about training children from a young age to support their social causes and political agenda, conservatives are understandably concerned. However, Reagan himself did something similar back in 1988, and was actually quite partisan, discussing such conservative values as low taxes, the greatness of America and the American vision of self-government. It was broadcast to schools nationwide, and barely got a blip on the radar. One can only assume this is so because most of America (certainly the conservative middle) holds those same values, but have recently become suspicious of the socialistic bent of the current administration. Thus the 'Conservative Freak-Out".
My question on this is: Are conservative parents concerned about the 'indoctrination' of their own children, who most likely would listen with skepticism due to hearing their parent's opinions, or the children of the 'mushy middle'?
These children are the largest block, and most likely to not have a political opinion due to their parents political indifference (yes, it seems that lately everyone is political, but it's truly surprising how many people are still politically asleep) and so would not recognize indoctrination when they are subjected to it. That is most likely the deeper fear for conservatives, and one that is well founded.
This fear was brought out on the liberal side back in 1991, when George H.W. Bush spoke from a Washington middle school. Naturally, it wasn't labelled 'hysteria' back then. This event, according to Dick Gephardt (D-MO) was "paid political advertising", and caused quite a bruhaha. There was much talk also of wasting precious education funding - a theme the MSM of today should have examined, considering the financial crisis and budget deficits facing our schools. The fact that they do not is just par for the far-left slanted course.
Let's face it - millions of school children look up to President Obama. He has achieved much, and is an example for at-risk kids everywhere, who desperately need a role model who advocates perseverance, achieving goals and thinking big. He is living proof that this is a land of opportunity where one can achieve almost anything, and that is definitely a lesson all our children should learn.
It's just too bad that, if he is successful in implementing his agenda, mediocrity will be the order of the day.
This speech seems innocuous enough - to keep my children out of school because of it seems a little petty to me.
That doesn't mean, however, that I won't be paying attention, reading the transcript, talking to my children and scrutinizing any future speeches he (or any politician, for that matter) aims at my kids.
Yes, I am.
I think, first and foremost, that my children are informed enough to listen and question on their own (I've had to urge restraint on my youngest, however!). I also feel that the speech itself will be pretty vanilla - mostly about staying in school and getting good grades, setting goals and achieving them, and going to college. All things I try to teach my own children.
There may, however, be stuff about 'service' to the community, which I will talk to my children about. Service to your community is a commendable thing, but it should be a personal choice, not something mandated by the state.
The thing that truly gives me pause is the worksheets that have been proposed. I'm not thrilled with the section titled 'Before the Speech'. The students are asked a series of questions, the last of which asks, "Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of Congress or governors? Why is what they say important?"
I would have less issue with these questions if they were followed with 'Why is it important for our elected officials to listen to the people? Why is what they say important, too?' This is, after all, a representative democracy form of government, and our elected officials should, ideally, do the bidding of the majority. Since I can count on the school system to drop the ball on pointing this out, I will, of course, supplement my children's education so that they understand how their government works (or, at least, how it's supposed to).
To me, the grade 7-12 worksheets were a bit more troubling, mostly because if you look at the style of the questions, some of them almost seem like polling questions. "What are the three most important words of the speech? Rank them" After all, grades 10th -12th will be of voting age in 2012, so why not focus group them now, hmmm?
What really has people freaked out, in my opinion, is the fact that he is addressing all of the school children in the nation. Considering some of the liberal ideas about training children from a young age to support their social causes and political agenda, conservatives are understandably concerned. However, Reagan himself did something similar back in 1988, and was actually quite partisan, discussing such conservative values as low taxes, the greatness of America and the American vision of self-government. It was broadcast to schools nationwide, and barely got a blip on the radar. One can only assume this is so because most of America (certainly the conservative middle) holds those same values, but have recently become suspicious of the socialistic bent of the current administration. Thus the 'Conservative Freak-Out".
My question on this is: Are conservative parents concerned about the 'indoctrination' of their own children, who most likely would listen with skepticism due to hearing their parent's opinions, or the children of the 'mushy middle'?
These children are the largest block, and most likely to not have a political opinion due to their parents political indifference (yes, it seems that lately everyone is political, but it's truly surprising how many people are still politically asleep) and so would not recognize indoctrination when they are subjected to it. That is most likely the deeper fear for conservatives, and one that is well founded.
This fear was brought out on the liberal side back in 1991, when George H.W. Bush spoke from a Washington middle school. Naturally, it wasn't labelled 'hysteria' back then. This event, according to Dick Gephardt (D-MO) was "paid political advertising", and caused quite a bruhaha. There was much talk also of wasting precious education funding - a theme the MSM of today should have examined, considering the financial crisis and budget deficits facing our schools. The fact that they do not is just par for the far-left slanted course.
Let's face it - millions of school children look up to President Obama. He has achieved much, and is an example for at-risk kids everywhere, who desperately need a role model who advocates perseverance, achieving goals and thinking big. He is living proof that this is a land of opportunity where one can achieve almost anything, and that is definitely a lesson all our children should learn.
It's just too bad that, if he is successful in implementing his agenda, mediocrity will be the order of the day.
This speech seems innocuous enough - to keep my children out of school because of it seems a little petty to me.
That doesn't mean, however, that I won't be paying attention, reading the transcript, talking to my children and scrutinizing any future speeches he (or any politician, for that matter) aims at my kids.
But, ultimately, this is probably more of an exercise in the Obama administration chasing history again than anything else.
The funny thing about all of this is that this speech was most likely meant as a harmless distraction from the controversy of a week ago about an additional $2 trillion Obama is adding to the deficit.
It certainly blew up into more than just a harmless distraction, but I'd have to say 'Mission Accomplished', wouldn't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)